</ 

University  of  California  •  Berkeley 


WHAT     IS     MAN? 


HIS  NATURE  AND  DESTINY. 


THE  SPIRIT,  OR  SOUL;  IS  IT  IMMORTAL? 

DOES  IT  SURVIVE  THE  DEATH  OF 

THE  BODY  IN  A  CONSCIOUS 

STATE  ? 


THE  VIEWS  OF  MORTAL-SOULISTS  EXAMINED  AND  REFUTED, 


IN    TWO    PARTS, 


BY   ELDER  J.  R.  LAMBERT, 

Of  the  Reorganized  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of 
Latter  Day  Saints. 


COPYRIGHT  ASSIGNED  TO  BOARD  OF  PUBLICATION. 


LAMONI,  IOWA: 

HERALD  PUBLISHING  HOUSE  AND  BOOKBINDERY 
1914. 


Entered  According  to  Act  of  Coqgress,  in  tr\e  Year  1891,  by 

LAMBERT  BROTHERS, 
In  tr\e  Office  of  the  Librarian  of  Coqgress,  at  Wasryrigtorv 

ALL  RIGHTS  RESERVED. 


i     o  0  ' 


PUBLISHER'S  PREFACE. 


IT  is  the  duty  of  man  to  become  acquainted 
with  himself;  and  so  far  as  he  can,  to  ascertain 
the  origin,  history,  and  destiny  of  the  race. 

This  work  has  been  secured  from  its  author 
and  publishers,  by  the  Board  of  Publication, 
and  is  offered  to  the  public  and  the  church, 
because  it  affords  one  source  of  information 
from  the  pen  of  a  well-known  able  writer  and 
controversialist,  with  which  to  meet  the  more 
or  less  alluring  philosophies  held  and  advanced 
by  cotemporaneous  religionists,  concerning  the 
condition  of  man  after  death,  and,  as  a  conse- 
quence of  his  duty  toward  God;  and  also, 
because  it  is  one  link  in  the  great  chain  of 
argumentative  reasoning  upon  which  the 
church  so  justly  congratulates  the  ministers 
for  Christ,  when  defending  the  latter-day 
work  against  the  attacks  of  those  who  "have 
a  form  of  godliness,  but  deny  the  power 
thereof." 


iv  PUBLISHER'S  PREFACE. 

It  has  been  the  desire  and  effort  of  the 
Board  of  Publication  to  place  in  the  hands  of 
all  such  works  of  our  own  authors  as  would 
form  the  standard  literature  of  the  church; 
and  having  secured  "What  is  Man"  from  Bro. 
Joseph  R.  Lambert,  its  author,  it  is  now  con- 
fidently offered  to  the  reader  as  a  help  in  the 
effort  to  comprehend  the  "Way  of  Life.'* 
By  order  of  the 

BOARD  OF  PUBLICATION. 

October  27,  1893.    . 


AUTHOR'S  PREFACE. 


OF  ALL  the  themes  which  engage  the  atten- 
tion of  man,  the  constitution  and  destiny  of  man 
himself  seems  at  once  the  most  attractive  and  the 
most  important.  Hence  it  is,  that  the  literature 
of  the  age  since  the  advent  of  letters,  is  but  a 
record  of  man — either  his  thoughts  and  acts,  or 
events,  providential  or  otherwise,  in  which  he 
has  a  paramount  interest.  Thus  history  is  the 
story  of  man,  imperfect  and  fragmentary,  but 
revealing  one  thing  clearly  and  certainly,  the 
overshadowing  importance  attributed  by  the  lead- 
ers of  thought  in  every  age,  to  the  creature  man, 
dignified  in  the  beginning  and  rendered  conspicu- 
ous above  all  other  creatures,  by  being  placed  in 
charge  of  the  creations  of  God. 

Through  the  mists  that  have  hung  over  the 
intellectual  and  spiritual  earth,  occasional  gleams 
of  light  have  come,  dimly  showing  the  constitution 
and  destiny  of  man;  and  during  brief  periods 
strong  light  has  been  thrown  upon  his  hopes  for 
the  future.  To  collect  and  present  as  completely 
as  possible  in  one  compact  book  these  rays  of 
light,  is  one  purpose  of  the  present  volume. 

In  ancient  as  well  as  modern  times  societies 
have  arisen,  denying  the  doctrine  of  present  im- 
mortality in  man.  The  representatives  of  these 
bodies,  partly  relying  upon  certain  poetic  and 
figurative  statements  of  the  Old  Testament  Scrip- 
tures, partly  by  retranslating,  repunctuating,  and 
paraphrasing  many  passages  in  the  New  Testament 
Scriptures,  and  largely  by  attacking  and  success- 
fully controverting  certain  traditional  errors  that 
have  obtained  with  some  of  their  opponents,  have 


vi  AUTHOR'S  PREFACE. 

succeeded  in  convincing  many  that  the  doctrine 
of  present  immortality  is  a  myth. 

The  work  we  herewith  present  meets  these 
advocates  of  mortal-soulism  in  the  following  man- 
ner:— 

1. — What  is  believed  to  be  a  correct  rule  of 
Bible  interpretation  is  laid  down. 

2. — The  claim  that  the  doctrine  of  present 
immortality  in  man  originated  with  the  Egyptians 
is  overthrown;  and  the  work  throughout  abounds 
in  evidence  that  it  originated  with  God. 

3. — What  are  regarded  by  mortal-soulists  as 
well  as  their  opponents  as  their  Gibraltars — Old 
Testament  declarations,  especially  those  in  the 
Psalms  of  David  and  Book  of  Job;  and  the  literal 
meaning  of  the  original  words  for  soul  and  spirit 
both  in  Greek  and  Hebrew,  are  attacked,  and  the 
author  believes  entirely  captured.  The  strongest 
Old  Testament  passages  are  given  and  examined: 
a,nd  the  original  words  cited  and  defined  by  refer- 
ence to  authors  regarded  as  standard  in  both 
America  and  Europe,  and  the  fallacy  and  decep- 
tion of  clinging  entirely  to  root-meanings  is,  it  is 
believed,  completely  and  thoroughly  exposed. 

4. — Such  New  Testament  passages  as  the  para- 
ble of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus;  the  language  of 
Christ  to  the  thief,  and  his  language  to  his  apos- 
tles concerning  the  indestructible  character  of  the 
soul;  Peter's  announcement  of  Christ's  mission 
to  spirits  in  prison;  Paul's  declaration  concerning 
a  man  caught  up  into  paradise,  and  many  others, 
receive  lengthy  and  careful  examination,  in  which 
the  different  renderings  of  several .  important 
translations  are  given.  Such  references  however, 
as  well  as  standard  authors  and  commentators, 
are  only  used  in  a  collateral  way;  the  final  appeal 
being  always  made  to  the  common  version  of  the 
Bible. 


AUTHOR'S  PREFACE.  vii 

5. — Leading-  mortal-soulist  authors,  such  a^ 
Grant,  Sheldon,  Jones,  and  others,  are  permitted 
to  state  their  own  propositions  in  their  own  words, 
both  in  defending  themselves  and  attacking  others, 
and  the  argument  of  the  author  is  addressed  to 
the  positions  of  these  representative  men. 

In  defense  of  the  present  immortality  of  man, 
his  constitution  as  a  dual  being  is  considered, 
briefly  scientifically,  thoroughly  scripturally;  the 
nature  of  life  and  death  as  used  with  reference  to 
both  here  and  hereafter,  man  in  Eden,  man  in  his 
passage  to  the  grave,  man  at  the  final  judgment 
when  the  decree  of  "second  death"  is  pronounced, 
is  examined  with  such  a  clearness  and  fullness  that 
the  theme  is  seen  to  be  one  of  light  and  hope;  both 
the  possibility  and  the  fact  of  conscious  existence 
out  of  the  body  are  shown ;  Christ  as  a  proper 
representative  in  himself  of  the  conditions  and 
characteristics  of  life  and  death,  is  exhaustively 
considered;  the  state  of  the  dead  between  death 
and  the  resurrection,  the  resurrection  as  a  means 
of  redemption,  and  the  final  judgment  as  illustra- 
tive of  the  condition  of  the  whole  race,  wicked  as 
well  as  righteous,  after  death  and  the  resurrection, 
are  all  both  minutely  and  comprehensively  treated. 

We  ask  for  the  work  only  such  reception  and 
consideration  as  the  importance  of  the  subject 
treated,  and  the  merits  of  the  treatise,  demand. 
We  believe  it  is  calculated  to  both  lead  the  reader 
to  the  truth,  and  fit  him,  so  far  as  outside  help 
may  do  so,  to  defend  it. 

The  work  is  not  written  to  bind  or  in  any  waj 
compromise  any  people;  but  the  author  believes  il 
fairly  presents  the  faith  of  the  people  he  repre- 
sents. 

Respectfully, 

JOSEPH  R.  LAMBERT. 


PART  I. 


CHAPTER  1. 

THE  BIBLE  THE  STANDARD  OF  EVIDENCE.  HOW  IT 
SHOULD  BE  VIEWED.  THE  DIFFERENT  CHARAC- 
TERS IT  PRESENTS.  CAREFUL  DISCRIMINATION 
NECESSARY. 

In  order  to  profitably  discuss  and  settle  any 
debatable  question,  it  is  essential  that  we  should 
have  a  proper  standard  of  evidence,  acknowledged 
by  all  sides  of  the  controversy.  The  clear  state- 
ments CL£  this  standard  should  settle  all  disputes. 

This  little  work  is  written  in  the  interests  of 
the  cause  of  truth,  which  is  always  more  prec- 
ious than  gold ;  and  while  designed  for  all  who 
will  read  it,  is  for  the  special  benefit  of  those  who 
believe  that  the  Bible  contains  a  clear  revelation 
of  God's  will  to  man ;  and  that,  therefore,  that 
which  it  sets  forth  as  the  truth,  is  indeed  of 
Divine  origin.  While,  therefore,  we  may  present 
collatteral  proofs  from  other  sources,  our  constant 
and  final  appeal  will  be  made  to  the  Book  of 
Books. 

The  Bible  is  a  sacred  volume,  because  it  deals 
with  and  teaches  sacred  things.  It  is  a  book  of 
history,  prophecy  and  doctrine.  As  a  history,  it 
reveals  the  evil  as  well  as  the  good  ;  the  imperfect 
as  well  as  the  perfect.  It  tells  of  a  people  who 
were  inspired  of  God  in  exact  proportion  to  the 
character  of  the  work  they  were  called  to  do,  their 
faith  in  Him  and  diligence  in  keeping  His  com- 
mandments. There  are,  therefore,  degrees  of  in- 
spiration. 


PBKSOKBL  OF  THE  BIBLE. 

Let  us  briefly  glance  at  the  personel  of  this 
wonderful  record.  We  have  God  ;  His  Son,  Jesus 
Christ ;  the  angels  of  God  ;  the  authorized  minis- 
ters and  servants  of  God  and  Christ,  speaking 
to  us.  In  addition  to  these,  unauthorized,  and 
perhaps  uninspired,  men,  speak  freely  to  us  of  the 
things  of  God.  On  the  other  hand,  we  have  the 
Devil ;  his  angels,  or  demons,  and  wicked  men 
who  talk  to  us  on  the  great  questions  of  duty  to 
God  and  each  other,  the  future  life,  etc. 

Thus  we  see  that  not  all  that  is  written  in  the 
Bible  is  the  word  of  God.  We  must  discriminate 
when  we  read.  -In  order  to  make  plain  the  main 
point  which  we  desire  to  reach,  the  reader's  atten- 
tion is  called  to  the  book  of  Job.  God,  Satan,  Job, 
his  three  friends  and  Elihu,  make  up  the  personel 
of  this  book.  Job  was  severely  tried,  and  his 
mind  became  darkened.  In  this  condition,  his 
statements  are  a  mixture  of  truth  and  error.  But 
how  can  we  know  which  of  his  statements  are 
true  ?  This  is  an  important  question. 

I.  We  can  know  by  their  general  agreement 
with  the  word  of  God  found  elsewhere  in  the 
Scriptures. 

II.  It  is  easily  seen  from  Job's  peculiar  con- 
dition and  the  general  tenor  of  his  speech,  that 
his   error  would  be  on  the  side  of  skepticism. 
Hence  whatever  he  said  in  favor  of  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  dead,  and  the  conscious  existence  of 
man  after  death,  may  be  relied  upon  as  true ;  for 
he  would  not  be  at  all  likely  to  utter  such  things 
except  as  his  heart  was  moved  by  the  Spirit  of 
God.    (See  Job  19 : 23-27  ;  14 : 14,  15.) 

III.  All  who  have  properly  obeyed  the  gospel 
and  live  up  to  its  just  and  pure  requirements,  are 
entitled  to  the  "Spirit  of  truth,"  whose  special 
office  work  is  to  "guide  into  all   truth."  (Jno. 
14  : 15-18 ;  14  : 26  ;  15  : 26  ;  16  : 13-15 ;  Acts  5  : 32.) 


LEADING  WITNESSES  OF  TRUTH.  7 

That  not  all  which  Job  said  can  be  relied  upon 
as  the  word  of  the  Lord,  is  evident  from  God's  re- 
proof to  him  and  his  open  confession  to  God. 
"Then  the  Lord  answered  Job  out  of  the  whirl- 
wind, and  said,  Who  is  this  that  darkeneth  coun- 
sel by  words  without  knowledge?"  Job  38: 1,2. 
Tn  chapter  42  : 3,  Job  says :  "I  uttered  that  I  un- 
derstood not ;  things  too  wonderful  for  me,  which 
I  knew  not."  Yerse  6,  "Wherefore  I  abhor  my- 
self and  repent  in  dust  and  ashes." 

The  testimony  of  Job's  three  friends  is  not  ad- 
missible. It  constitutes  a  portion  of  the  sacred 
history  from  which  we  may  learn  a  useful  lesson, 
but  is  not  valid  proof.  By  reference  to  Job  4 : 12- 
17,  with  Job  5 : 1,  it  will  be  seen  that  Eliphaz,  the 
leader  among  them,  talks  more  like  a  clairvoyant 
and  clairaudient  medium  than  a  servant  of  God. 
In  verse  18  of  chapter  4,  he  certainly  teaches  that 
which  is  false.  So  far  as  the  teachings  of  these 
men  are  concerned,  when  taken  as  a  whole,  im- 
mortal-soulists  have  nothing  to  fear;  but  why 
accept  as  witnesses  those  whom  the  Lord  rejects 
and  condemns?  Job  had  spoken  foolishly,  to 
some  extent,  at  least,  but  these  had  spoken  wick- 
edly, hence  were  commanded  to  make  an  offering 
for  sin.  (Job  42: 7-9.) 

Elihu  seems  to  have  enjoyed  light  and  power 
from  God.  The  Lord  does  not  condemn  him, 
hence  we  do  not,  but  infer  that  he  was  an  author- 
ized servant  of  God. 

We  understand  the  following  to  be  the  leading 
witnesses  for  truth,  and  properly  authorized  rep- 
resentatives of  God  and  Christ,  according  to  the 
Bible :  Jesus  Christ,  "the  messenger  of  the  cov- 
enant." The  Apostles  whom  He  chose  and  or- 
dained, with  all  the  prophets  whom  God  sent  and 
inspired.  All  that  which  is  shown  to  be  support- 
ed by,  and  is  in  harmony  with  the  testimony  of 


8  MORTAL-SOULISTS  AND  JOB. 

these  witnesses,  is  proved  by  the  Bible;  but  that 
which  does  not  have  such  support,  and  is  in  con- 
flict with  such  testimony,  is  not  proved.  It  should, 
however,  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  silence  of  one 
or  more  of  these  witnesses  is  no  evidence  against 
what  others  plainly  taught.  If  about  fifteen  hun- 
dred years  passed  away  before  anything  was  written 
concerning  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  it  by  no 
means  proves  what  later  witnesses  have  said  con- 
cerning that  doctrine  to  be  false.  And  upon  the 
same  principle,  two  or  three  thousand  years  of 
silence,  concerning  this  or  any  other  doctrine, 
afterwards  revealed  and  taught,  would  have  pre- 
cisely the  same  effect.  Mortal-soulists  gain  noth- 
ing by  stating  that  nearly  all  that  vast  period  of 
time  covered  by  Bible  history  (over  four  thousand 
years)  had  passed  away  before  the  word  immortal 
was  used;  for  if  this  proves  that  nothing  was  known 
of  the  immortality  of  the  soul  prior  to  that  time, 
then  it  just  as  plainly  proves  that  nothing  was 
known  of  the  immortality  of  man  in  the  resurrec- 
tion; of  the  immortality  of  the  angels,  and  of  God 
Himself!  Surely,  this  would  prove  too  much,  and 
hence  proves  nothing. 

Again  mortal-soulists  quote  largely  from  the 
book  of  Job;  but,  so  far  as  we  have  seen,  (and  we 
have  read  a  number  of  their  works  on  this  ques- 
tion,) fail  to  make  any  distinction  between  the 
teaching  of  Job  and  Elihu  on  the  one  hand,  and 
Job's  three  miserable  comforters  on  the  other. 
They  make  no  allowance  for  Job's  tried  and  dark- 
ened condition,  at  the  time  he  uttered  his  most 
skeptical  sayings  concerning  the  future  life. 

The  books  of  Job  and  Psalms  are  highly  poeti- 
cal and  full  of  Oriental  figures;  but  mortal- 
soulists,  in  their  efforts  to  find  support  for  the 
dogma  of  unconsciousness  after  death,  ignore 
both  of  these  important  considerations.  Hence 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.  9 

their  interpretations  are  wrong,  and  their  conclu- 
sions absurd.  The  same  kind  of  interpretation 
which  is  found  necessary  to  a  support  of  their  be- 
lief, when  placed  upon  other  passages  of  scripture, 
(and  sometimes  the  very  ones  used)  will  prove 
that  there  is  no  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  that 
men  are  actually  unconscious  before  they  die,  and 
while  in  the  use  of  all  their  senses  !  (See  part  II. 
of  this  work). 

Old  Testament  writers  treat  of  man's  duty  to 
God  and  to  each  other,  and  of  the  promises  he 
shall  enjoy,  if  obedient,  almost  exclusively  with 
reference  to  this  life.  There  are  not  many  direct 
proofs  in  favor  of  that  great  gospel  principle,  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead,  in  all  the  Old  Testament 
Scriptures,  which,  historically,  cover  a  period  of 
about  four  thousand  years.  Nor  would  we  inval- 
idate our  position  in  the  least  by  conceding  that 
the  proof  for  man's  conscious  existence  beween 
death  and  the  resurrection  is  even  more  scanty 
than  the  proof  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body. 

It  does  not  follow  that  because  one  principle, 
or  doctrine,  is  supported  by  a  less  amount  of  evi- 
dence than  another,  it  is  therefore  untrue.  The 
resurrection,  as  taught  in  the  gospel,  throws  a  flood 
of  light  and  hope  on  the  purposes  of  God  and  the 
eternal  destiny  of  man  ;  but  that  these  purposes 
of  the  Infinite  One  concerning  the  righteous  and 
the  wicked,  in  the  resurrection  state,  may  be  ac- 
complished, it  is  necessary,  nay,  absolutely  essential, 
that  man  should  continue  in  a  conscious  state 
after  death.  Were  it  not  so,  the  connecting  link 
between  this  life  and  the  resurrection  would  be 
wanting ;  all  the  valuable  experiences  had  here  as 
a  means  of  preparation  for  another  and  better 
world,  would  be  lost.  What  we  call  the  resurrec- 
tion would  be  a  new  creation,  and  the  judgment 
would  be  but  a  farce !  We  are  to  be  raised  and 


10  SOLEMN  OBLIGATIONS. 

judged  with  direct  reference  to  what  we  hare 
done  here ;  hence  it  is  necessary  that  conscious 
identity  be  preserved. 

In  treating  the  subject  before  us,  then,  from  a 
Bible  point  of  view,  we  are  under  the  most  solemn 
obligations,  so  far  as  able,  to  do  it  properly  and 
intelligently.  That  which  is  literal  must  be  so 
regarded,  while  all  figures  must  be  accepted  as 
such,  their  character  and  purpose  being  carefully 
considered.  Every  revelation  of  God  is  an  emana- 
tion from  the  Infinite  Mind  ;  and  when  we  inter- 
pret in  a  narrow  and  superficial  way,  we  are  sure 
to  get  into  trouble  and  bring  ourselves  into  con- 
flict with  some  portion  of  truth. 

It  is  important  that  we  should  be  right. 
Everything  which  we  believe  and  do  has  one  of 
two  tendencies.  It  will  either  bring  us  nearer  to 
God,  thereby  increasing  our  happiness  and  useful- 
ness, or  it  will  take  us  farther  away  from  Him, 
producing  opposite  results.  While  we  essay  an 
important  task,  may  the  light  of  the  Divine  word 
shine  in  upon  us. 


CHAPTER  II. 

AN  EXAMINATION  OF  THE   NATURE  AND  CONSTI- 
TUTION OF  MAN. 

"What  is  man  ?"  The  Psalmist  makes  the 
following  wonderful  statement  concerning  him  : 

For  thou  hast  made  him  a  little  lower  than  the  angels, 
and  hast  crowned  him  with  glory  and  honor.— Psalms  8:5. 

The  pronoun  him  with  its  antecedent  ma»,  evi- 
dently applies  to  the  race.  To  attempt  to  limit 
these  terms  to  Adam  is  to  deny  a  well  established 
fact ;  outrage  the  sense  of  the  chapter,  and  do  vio- 
lence to  the  context.  Verses  6,  7  and  8,  read  as 
follows : 


THE  RACE  OP  MAN.  11 

Thou  madest  him  to  have  dominion  over  the  works  of 
thy  hands;  thou  hast  put  all  things  under  his  feet:  The 
fowl  of  the  air,  the  fish  of  the  sea,  and  whatsoever  passeth 
through  the  path  of  the  seas. 

Man  still  holds  and  exercises  this  dominion, 
which  proves  that  the  inspired  writer  referred  to 
the  race.  In  verse  4,  we  read  : 

What  is  man  that  thou  art  mindful  of  him  ?  and  the 
son  of  man,  that  thou  visitest  him  ? 

This  language  compels  us  to  believe  that  the 
Psalmist's  thought  was  on  the  mindful  care  of  the 
Divine  being,  for  man,  (the  race)  in  the  different 
ages  of  the  world. 

If  the  pronoun  him  applies  to  Adam  only,  as 
a  minister  and  author  of  the  Christian  Advent 
Church  claimed  in  a  late  discussion  with  the  writ- 
er, then  why  is  it  that  the  verbs  in  verse  4  are 
used  in  the  present  tense  ?  "Thou  art  mindful  of 
him,"  and  "thou  visitest  him,"  can  not  be  made  to 
apply  to  Adam  alone.  Indeed  the  grammar  and 
sense  of  the  chapter  as  a  whole,  together  with  the 
entire  teaching  of  the  Bible  on  this  subject,  com- 
pel us  to  reject  so  narrow  and  unwarranted  an  in- 
terpretation of  the  word  of  God.  Does  God  visit 
man  today?  Is  he  "mindful  of  him  ?"  Will  he 
be  mindful  of  man  and  visit  him  in  the  future  ? 
If  so,  the  proper  application  of  the  pronoun  Aim, 
found  in  our  leading  quotation,  is  settled. 

In  Job  7  : 17, 18,  we  have  a  parallel  passage,  so 
far  as  the  application  of  the  noun  man  is  con- 
cerned : 

What  is  man,  that  thou  shouldest  magnify  him  ?  and 
that  thou  shouldest  set  thine  heart  upon  him  ?  And  that 
thou  shouldest  visit  him  every  morning,  and  try  him  every 
moment  ? 

With  perfect  assurance  that  the  proper  ap- 
plication of  this  word  is  now  settled  in  the  minds 
of  all  careful  and  intelligent  readers,  we  proceed. 

In  what  respect  is  man  made  ua  little  lower 
than  the  angels? "  In  respect  to  the  mortality  of 


12  THE  HOUSE  IN  WHICH  WE  DWELL. 

the  body  with  all  its  consequent  conditions.  The 
body  is  called  a  house,  or  tabernacle.  (2  Cor.  5:1; 
Matt.  12 : 44 ;  2  Peter  1 : 14.)  We  are  largely  affect- 
ed by  the  character  of  the  house  in  which  we 
dwell.  If  it  is  a  miserable  shell  with  a  leaky  roof, 
we  are  physically  exposed  and  injured ;  if  the 
windows  are  few  in  number,  small,  and  the  glass 
partially  opaque,  we  can  not  see  well  when  we 
look  out,  nor  can  we  see  well  within.  In  this  case 
the  defect  is  not  in  the  eye,  but  in  the  windows  of 
the  house.  The  great,  the  rich  and  the  learned, 
would,  by  actual  occupancy,  become  subject  to  the 
same  conditions  with  the  foolish,  the  poor  and 
illiterate.  So  we  argue  that  all  the  peculiarities 
and  weaknesses  resulting  from  the  mortality  of 
the  body,  are  not  valid  evidences  against  the  capa- 
bilities and  immortality  of  the  soul. 

Christ,  who  dwelt  with  the  Father  in  the 
Spirit,  and  in  glory,  "before  the  world  was ;"  (Jno. 
17:5,24)  who  took  upon  himself  a  mortal  body 
with  all  the  peculiarities  of  our  nature ;  (Heb. 
10:5-10;  2 : 14-18)  was  made  "a  little  lower  than 
the  angels"  in  the  same  sense  that  man  was  so 
made. 

But  we  see  Jesus,  who  was  made  a  little  lower  than  the 
angels  for  (or  t>y,  margin)  the  suffering  of  death,  crowned 
with  glory  and  honor;  that  he  by  the  grace  of  God  should 
taste  death  for  every  man.— Heb.  2:9. 

Jesus  could  not  have  escaped  death  any  more 
than  we  can,  unless  his  body  had  been  immortal- 
ized by  the  power  of  God  ;  in  which  case  his  miss- 
ion into  this  world  to  destroy  death  would  have 
been  a  failure ;  though  had  he  desired  it,  he  could 
have  escaped  death  on  the  cross.  (Heb.  2 : 14 ;  1 
Cor.  15 : 26 ;  Matt.  26  : 53,  54 ;  Jno.  10 : 17,  18.) 

Angels  are  evidently  immortal  and  glorified 
beings. 

And  Jesus  answering  said  unto  them,  The  children  of 
this  world  marry,  and  are  given  in  marriage :  but  they 
which  shall  be  accounted  worthy  to  obta'n  that  world 


MORTAL  AND  IMMORTAL  BEINGS.  13 

and  the  resurrection  from  the  dead,  neither  marry,  nor  are 
given  in  marriage :  neither  can  they  die  any  more :  for  they 
are  equal  unto  the  angels;  and  are  the  children  of  God,  be- 
ing the  children  of  the  rusurrection.— Luke  20:34-36. 

The  leading  difference  between  men  and  ang- 
els being  now  settled ;  and  that  which  constitutes 
man  a  lower  being  than  an  angel  having  been  plain- 
ly shown  to  be  the  mortality  of  the  body  and  con- 
sequent death,  it  becomes  needful  for  us  to  note, 
in  few  words,  the  difference  between  mortality 
and  immortality.  It  will  be  admitted  at  once, 
that  the  difference  is  very  great.  We  can  hardly 
think  of  two  things,  or  beings,  so  widely  different 
from  each  other  as  an  immortal  and  mortal  being. 
The  finite  mind  can  form  but  a  faint  conception 
of  it.  The  difference  between  light  and  darkness, 
heat  and  cold,  truth  and  error,  right  and  wrong, 
will  serve  to  illustrate,  in  a  degree  at  least,  the 
difference  between  immortal  and  glorified  angels 
and  beings  who  are  wholly  mortal  and  altogether 
of  this  world.  And  yet,  the  word  says  that  God 
made  man  "a  little,"  only  a  little,  "lower  than  the 
angels  1 " 

As,  then,  the  difference  between  a  being  who 
is  wholly  mortal  and  one  who  is  wholly  immortal,  is 
so  inexpressibly  great,  we  are  compelled  to  believe, 
by  the  force  of  evidence,  that  man  is  possessed  of 
immortality. 

The  great  law  of  adaptability  proves  that 
there  is  something  in  man  which  is  immortal.  If 
he  is  wholly  of  the  earth,  as  our  opponents  claim, 
then  the  things  of  the  earth  only,  are  adapted  to 
his  needs.  He  can  have  no  desire  (because  there 
is  no  capacity)  for  God,  Heaven,  or  Immortality. 
Perishable  food  would,  in  that  case,  satisfy  his 
strongest  desires  and  highest  aspirations.  It 
would  be  impossible  for  him  to  seek  for  immortal- 
ity, for  he  could  not,  in  any  degree,  comprehend 


14  "THE  SPIRIT  IN  MAN." 

what  it  is.  He  could  not  exercise  faith  in  God,  for 
that  would  require  him  to  look  intelligently  to  an 
eternal  and  immortal  being.  For  the  same  reason 
he  could  not  "repent  towards  God,"  nor  obey  any 
of  His  commandments ;  for  that  obedience  is  not 
acceptable  unless  it  is  yielded  intelligently  and  in 
faith.  ("Whatsoever  is  not  of  faith  is  sin."— Kom. 
14:23.) 

As  light  and  truth  and  purity  can  not  be 
appreciated,  nor  comprehended  to  any  extent, 
where  they  have  no  existence,  so  an  eternal  and 
immortal  God  can  not  be  sought  and  found,  nor 
an  incorruptible  Heaven  desired  and  secured,  by 
any  being  who  is  wholly  destitute  of  immortality. 

In  a  little  pamphlet  written  by  Miles  Grant, 
and  entitled  "THE  SPIRIT  IN  MAN,"  pp.  8  and  9, 
we  have  the  following  statements  : 

Shall  we  dispute  the  record  and  say  man  was  not  form- 
ed of  dust,  but  only  the  house  in  which  he  was  to  live  ? 
Why  not  believe  the  Lord  ?  He  says  man  was  formed  oi 
the  dust  of  the  ground!  When  man  is  analyzed,  he  is 
found  composed  of  carbon,  oxygen,  hydrogen,  nitrogen, 
sulphur,  phosphorus,  iron  and  lime.  These  are  all  earthly 
substances.  And  when  he  created  man  from  these  mater- 
ials, he  made  the  most  wonderful  piece  of  mechanism  of 
which  we  have  any  conception.  The  lungs,  with  their  mil- 
lions of  air  cells,  were  prepared,  in  connection  with  the  air, 
to  purify  the  blood  that  had  passed  through  the  system, 
and  fit  it  for  another  revolution.  The  atmosphere,  or 
"breath  of  life,"  is  a  material  substance  made  to  move  the 
wonderful  machinery  of  the  being  called  man. 

The  above  is  quite  eloquent ;  comes  from  an 
able  pen,  and  is,  we  presume,  so  far  as  it  goes,  a 
fair  representation  of  the  views  of  modern  mater- 
ialists who  accept  the  Bible.  According  to  Mr. 
Grant,  "the  whole  man  was  made  of  dust,"  and  at 
death,  "the  whole  man"  returns  "to  dust."  Now, 
as  man  neither  possessed  life  nor  mind  before  God 
"breathed  into  his  nostrils  the  breath  of  life,"  it 
follows  that  the  mind  is  no  part  of  man,  proper ! 
And  if  no  part  of  man,  what  is  it  ?  And  how  does 


DEMAND  A1STD  SUPPLY.  15 

man,  without  mind,  become  accountable  to  God  ? 

Again  :  Can  the  man  who  is  wholly  composed 
of  "carbon,  oxygen,  hydrogen,  nitrogen,  sulphur, 
phosphorus,  iron  and  lime"  comprehend,  to  any 
extent,  and  seek  after  God?  What  about  the 
"inner"  or  "inward  man"  of  the  New  Testament 
to  which  the  reader's  attention  will  be  called  in  a 
subsequent  chapter  of  this  book?  This  "inner 
man"  is  also  called  spirit,  or  soul,  and  is,  as  we 
shall  presently  see,  the  intellectual,  conscious 
part  of  his  being — the  part  which  returns  to  God 
who  gave  it.  (Eccl.  12  : 7 ;  Luke  23  : 46 ;  Acts  7  : 59.) 
There  is  not  even  good  sense  manifested  in  the  act 
of  specially  commending  the  spirit  into  the  hands 
of  God,  at  death,  if  the  theory  of  mortal-soulists 
be  true.  It  would  be  far  more  consistent  to  com- 
mend the  body,  "the  whole  maw,"  the  man  whom 
God  created ;  (and  the  only  one,  according  to  the 
position  of  our  opponents)  the  man  who  dies,  is 
resurrected  and  rewarded,  into  the  hands  of  God, 
than  to  exercise  so  much  solicitude  and  faith  con- 
cerning a  little  corrupted  matter  which  is  "breath- 
ed out"  at  death  I  Jesus  and  Stephen  were  evi- 
dently not  mortal-soulists,  for  if  they  were,  the 
record  shows  that  they  indulged  in  the  most  con- 
summate folly ! 

The  elements  which  compose  our  bodies  are 
found  in  what  we  eat  and  drink ;  and  the  normal 
and  constantly  recurring  desire  for  them  we  call 
appetite.  Every  normal  demand  is  of  God  and 
will,  therefore,  receive  an  adequate  supply.  We 
hunger,  and  there  is  food  to  eat ;  we  thirst,  and 
there  is  water  to  drink ;  but  if  the  dust  man  is  all 
there  is  of  the  being  whom  God  made  "in  his  own 
image,"  (Gen.  1 : 26,  27)  and  "a  little  lower  than 
the  angels,"  (Psalms  8: 5)  his  desires  and  aspira- 
tions can  extend  no  farther.  In  that  case,  the 
things  of  this  world  would  supply  all  his  needs. 


16  LONGINGS  OF  THE  SOUL. 

But  how  is  it  with  man?  All  the  things  of  this 
world,  including  health,  wealth  and  power,  fail 
to  satisfy  the  earnest  longings  of  the  soul.  Noth- 
ing short  of  faith  in  God  and  a  proper  obedience 
to  His  word  will  bring  perfect  peace  and  rest,  and 
satisfy  the  demands  of  the  "inner  man."  This 
proves  the  existence  of  immortality  in  man. 

Man  is  a  fallen  creature,  it  is  true,  but  he  is 
not  totally  depraved.  If  he  is,  then  it  follows, 
logically,  we  think,  that  God  becomes  wholly  re- 
sponsible for  his  conversion  and  salvation.  Little 
children  and  infants,  if  the  dogma  of  total  deprav- 
ity be  true,  instead  of  being  proper  types  of  inno- 
cence and  purity,  would  be  wholly  corrupt  and 
unfit  for  the  companionship  of  God.  How  very 
differently  does  the  Master  teach.  ( Jno.  1:9; 
Matt.  18:1-5,  10,  11,  14;  Mark  10:13-16.)  The 
doctrine  of  total  depravity  and  that  of  salvation 
through  a  proper  use  of  our  agency,  (so  plainly 
taught  in  -the  Bible)  are  in  direct  conflict  with 
each  other.  If  there  is  no  good  in  man,  then  there 
is  nothing  to  be  saved,— no  basis  from  which  he 
can  build  up  a  Christian  character ;  and  it  is  this 
character  alone  which  will  admit  him  through  the 
"pearly  gates"  into  the  "golden  city."  The  same 
is  true  of  immortality.  Where  it  does  not  exist, 
in  any  degree,  there  can  be  no  conception  of  God, 
hence  no  faith  in  him ;  no  possible  connection  (in 
harmony  with  the  principle  of  agency)  between 
this  world  and  that  which  is  to  come ;  no  possibil- 
ity of  feeding  on  the  imperishable  food  provided 
in  the  gospel,  (the  bread  which  "came  down  from 
heaven")  for  there  would  be  no  adaptation 
of  the  condition,  desires  and  needs  of  the 
wholly  mortal  man,  to  the  pure  and  immortal 
truth  on  which  he  is  to  feed.  Jesus  said  : 

Man  shall  not  live  by  bread  alone,  but  by  every  word 
that  proceedeth  out  of  the  mouth  of  God.— Matt.  4:4 


IMMORTAL  FOOD  FOR  IMMORTAL  BEINGS.        17 

Why  not  "live  by  bread  alone"  inasmuch  as  it 
fully  feeds  and  sustains  what  we  are  told  is  "the 
whole  man  ?  "  The  very  fact  that  God  has  pro- 
vided eternal  and  imperishable  food  for  man,  is 
the  best  evidence  that  there  is  something 
eternal  and  imperishable  (deathless)  in  him  which 
needs  to  be  fed.  God  made  the  body  and  has 
provided  suitable  food  for  it ;  He  made  the  spirit, 
or  soul,  at  some  time,  and  has  provided  suitable 
food  for  it.  Kedemption  and  salvation  are  accom- 
plished through  obedience  to  law ;  and  it  is  fitting 
that  the  "Father  of  spirits,"  the  "God  of  the  spir- 
its of  all  flesh,"  should  furnish  that  which  will,  if 
properly  received,  bring  us  back  into  a  state  of 
purity,  peace  and  eternal  bliss.  (Heb.  12:9; 
Numbers  16:22.) 

John  6  : 63,  throws  light  upon  this  part  of  our 
subject : 

It  is  the  spirit  that  quickeneth;  the  flesh  profiteth 
nothing:  the  words  that  I  speak  unto  you,  they  are  spirit, 
and  they  are  life. 

The  flesh  (by  itself)  is  of  no  profit ;  but  not  so 
with  the  spirit.  This  shows  why  Jesus  and  Steph- 
en commended  their  spirits  into  God's  special  care 
at  death.  The  word  of  life,  the  spirit  word,  is 
that  upon  which  the  spirit  man  must  feed,  and  if 
he  will  not,  the  result  will  be  spiritual  death. 

Of  his  own  will  begat  he  us  with  the  word  of  truth,  that 
we  should  he  a  kind  of  first  fruits  of  his  creatures.— J as. 
1:18. 

Seeing  ye  have  purified  your  souls  in  obeying  the  truth 
through  the  Spirit  unto  unfeigned  love  of  the  brethren, 
see  that  ye  love  one  another  with  a  pure  heart  fervently: 
being  bom  again,  not  of  corruptible  seed,  but  of  incor- 
ruptible, by  the  word  of  God,  which  liveth  and  abideth  for- 
ever. For  all  flesh  is  as  grass,  and  all  the  glory  of  man  as 
the  flower  of  grass.  The  grass  withereth,  and  the  flower 
thereof  falleth  away;  but  the  word  of  the  Lord  endureth 
forever.  And  this  is  the  word  which  by  the  gospel  is 
preached  unto  you.— 1  Pet.  1:22-25. 


18  THE  GOSPEL  FOR  IMMORTAL  BEINGS. 

Thus  we  see  that  the  whole  gospel  plan  is 
peculiarly  adapted  to  the  needs  of  the  spirit  man. 
In  a  grand  and  gospel  sense,  we  are  begotten  of 
God  "with  the  word  of  truth ; "  by  the  same  word 
we  are  "born  again,"  regenerated,  made  the  child- 
ren of  God.  Jesus  said  : 

That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh;  and  that  which 
Is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit.— Jno.  3:6. 

It  may  be  possible  for  immortality  to  exist 
where  there  is  no  desire  for  God  or  understanding 
of  his  character;  but,  in  our  judgment,  it  is 
impossible  for  this  desire  and  understanding 
to  obtain  where  there  is  no  immortality.  It 
would  be  just  as  possible  for  us  to  teach  the  dumb 
animals  to  believe  in  God,  obey  His  laws  and 
preach  the  gospel  to  the  people.  Either  one  would 
be  stepping  beyond  and  outside  of  the  lines  of  de- 
marcation established  by  the  Infinite  God  ! 

In  reply  to  Mr.  Grant's  question  and  state- 
ment ;  "Why  not  believe  the  Lord  ?  He  says  man 
was  formed  'of  the  dust  of  the  ground,' "  we  only 
need  say :  We  do  believe  Him.  Not  only  do  we 
believe  what  He  has  said  in  Genesis  2:7;  3 : 19, 
but  we  believe  His  word  wherever  we  find  it.  We 
believe  the  following  statements  found  in  Zech. 
12:1. 

The  burden  of  the  word  of  the  Lord  for  Israel,  saith  the 
Lord,  which  stretcheth  forth  the  heavens,  and  layeth  the 
foundation  of  the  earth,  and  formeth  the  spirit  of  man 
within  him. 

We  believe  that  the  "inner  man"  is  a  compo- 
nent and  very  important  part  of  man.  (Eph.  3  : 16 ; 
Rom.  7:22;  2Cor.  4:16;  12:1-4;  1  Peter  3:3,4.) 
These  texts  do  not  refer  to  a  new  person  intro- 
duced at  conversion,  but  to  the  spirit  formed 
within  man  by  the  Creator,  which  is  tranformed 
and  renewed  by  the  life  and  power  of  the  gospel. 
As  we  shall  show  in  another  place,  we  put  on  Christ 
through  faith,  and  obedience  to  "the  word  of 
truth." 


BIBLE  USE  OF  MORTALITY  AND  IMMORTALITY.     19 

Notwithstanding  the  fact  that  Mr.  Grant 
ignores  the  idea  of  the  body  being  a  house  in 
which  the  conscious  man  dwells,  it  is  so  taught  in 
the  New  Testament,  and  we  are  not  at  liberty 
to  reject  it.  In  2  Cor.  5:1,  the  body  is  called 
"our  earthly  house."  In  verse  4  we  read : 

For  we  that  are  in  this  tabernacle  do  groan,  being  bur- 
dened: not  for  that  we  would  be  unclothed,  but  clothed 
upon,  that  mortality  might  be  swallowed  up  of  life. 

Mortal-soulists  say  the  word  "mortality, "found 
in  verse  4,  applies  to  the  whole  man.  Evidently  not. 
It  applies  to  the  tabernacle  in  which  we  "do  groan 
being  burdened."  The  Eevised  Version  renders 
it  "that  what  is  mortal  may  be  swallowed  up  of 
life,"  thus  plainly  implying  that  one  part  of  the 
man  is  immortal.  The  Douay  Bible  agrees  with 
the  Revised,  reading  "that  which  is  mortal."  In 
Matt.  12 : 44,  the  body  is  called  a  house.  2  Peter 
1 : 13,  14,  15,  is  very  plain : 

Yea,  I  think  it  meet,  as  long  as  I  am  in  this  taber- 
nacle, to  stir  you  up  by  putting  you  in  remembrance; 
knowing  that  shortly  I  must  put  off  this  my  tabernacle 
even  as  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  hath  showed  me.  Moreover 
I  will  endeavor  that  ye  may  be  able  after  my  decease  to 
have  these  things  always  in  remembrance. 

We  put  the  foregoing  testimonies  to  what  Mr. 
Grant  has  adduced  on  this  point,  and  that  he  may 
know  our  attitude  towards  the  good  book  we  kind- 
ly inform  him  that  we  believe  them  all. 

We  now  come  to  consider  the  Bible  use  of  the 
words  immortality  and  mortality,  with  their  adject- 
ive forms.  The  word  immortality  is  found  but  five 
times  in  the  entire  Bible.  It  is  somewhat  strange, 
but  true,  that  Pan!  is  the  only  Bible  writer  who 
used  this  word.  We  find  it  used  twice  in  1  Cor. 
15  :53,  54,  and  applied  to  the  body  in  the  resurrec- 
tion. Next,  we  find  it  in  1  Tim.  6 : 16,  and  ap- 
plied, by  mortal-soulists,  to  God,  the  Father. 
And  as  this  text  is  considered  strong  proof  that 
man  is  wholly  mortal,  we  quote  it,  and  examine 
the  character  of  the  evidence. 


20  A  FAVORITE  TEXT  EXAMINED. 

Who  only  hath  immortality,  dwelling  in  the  light  which 
no  man  can  approach  unto;  whom  no  man  hath  seen  nor 
can  see;  to  whom  be  honor  and  power  everlasting.  Amen. 
The  text  proves  nothing  for  mortal-soulists, 
unless  it  is  accepted  without  the  slightest  modifi- 
cation, in  which  case  it  proves  too  much,  hence 
nothing.  These  statements  were  made  by  Paul, 
many  years  after  Jesus  had  ascended  into  heaven 
to  sit  down  on  the  right  hand  of  God.  Was  not 
He  immortal?  "Enoch  was  translated  that  he 
should  not  see  death."  (Heb.  11:5;  Gen.  5:24.) 
Did  he  go  to  dwell  with  God  with  a  mortal  body 
of  flesh  and  blood?  (1  Cor.  15:50.  "Flesh  and 
blood  cannot  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God  ;  neither 
doth  corruption  inherit  incorruption." )  "Elijah 
went  up  by  a  whirlwind  into  heaven."  Was  not 
he  immortal  when  Paul  penned  these  words? 
What  about  the  holy  angels?  Were  they  not, 
are  they  not,  immortal  and  glorified  beings? 
(Luke  20: 34-36.)  More  than  thirty  years  before 
this  was  written  there  was  a  resurrection  of  many 
Saints: 

And  the  graves  were  opened;  and  many  bodies  of  the 
saints  which  slept  arose,  and  came  out  of  the  graves  after 
his  resurrection,  and  went  into  the  holy  city,  and  appeared 
unto  many.— Matt.  27:52,  53. 

Were  not  all  these  saints  immortal  ? 

"Whom  no  man  hath  seen  nor  can  see,."  Can 
we  afford  to  accept  this  in  an  unmodified  sense? 
Do  not  our  mortal-soulist  friends  believe  and 
teach  that  God  is  a  material  being,  and  that  und- 
er proper  conditions  he  may  be  and  has  been  seen  ? 
Do  not  the  Scriptures  plainly  teach  that  God  has 
been  seen  ?  and  that,  in  a  coming  day,  He  will  be 
seen  by  all  who  are  truly  His  children  ? 

And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses  face  to  face,  as  a  man 
speaketh  unto  his  friend.— Ex.  33:11. 

With  him  will  I  speak  mouth  to  mouth,  even  apparent- 
ly, and  not  in  dark  speeches;  and  the  similitude  of  the 
Lord  shall  he  behold.— Num.  12:8.  See  Deu.  34:10;  4:12. 


THE  LORD  HAS  BEEN  SEEN.  21 

Blessed  are  the  pure  in  heart  for  they  shall  see  God.— 
Matt.  5:8. 

We  shall  be  like  Him;  for  we  shall  see  Him  as  he  is.— 
Jno.  3:2.  See  1  Cor.  13:12. 

Now  to  modify  all  the  leading  statements  of 
this  Scripture,  but  one,  and  insist  that  this  one 
must  be  received  without  modification,  as  mortal- 
soulists  are  compelled  to  do  in  order  to  find  any 
support  here,  is  to  do  violence  to  a  well  known  and 
leading  rule  of  interpretation,  which  rule  we 
state  in  another  place.  There  is,  therefore,  no 
support  to  be  found  in  this  text  for  the  belief  in 
man's  entire  mortality.  The  true  idea  seems  to  be 
that  God  alone  hath  a  fulness  of  immortality  and 
glory,  of  which  he  may  impart  to  others  at  will ; 
that  He  dwells  in  a  fulness  of  light  unto  which  no 
man  can  approach  and  live  except  he  be  quicken- 
ed by  the  Holy  Spirit.  All  may  believe  upon  evi- 
dence ;  but  none  can  "see  G-od  "  in  the  sense  of  the 
statements  and  promises  of  the  word,  except  they 
have  in  themselves  that  which  God  alone  can  give. 
John  W.  Haley,  M.  A.,  in  "DISCREPANCIES  OF 
THE  BIBLE,"  p.  186,  makes  the  following  state- 
ments concerning  the  text  under  consideration : 

By  parity  of  reasoning  the  language  employed  in  Rom- 
ans 16:27,  "God  only  wise,"  warrants  the  inference  that  God 
is  the  only  being  who  possesses  wisdom! 

The  meaning  in  both  cases  obviously  is  that  only  God 
possesses  the  given  attribute,  inherently  and  underivedly. 
.  .  .  .  Upon  no  reasonable  interpretation  does  the 
passage  collide  with  the  derived  and  dependent  immor- 
tality of  man. 

The  remaining  two  places  in  which  "immor- 
tality" is  found,  are  Eomans  2 : 7  ;  2  Timothy  1 : 10  : 

To  them  who  by  patient  continuance  in  well  doing  seek 
for  glory  and  honor  and  immortality,  eternal  life. 

But  is  now  made  manifest  by  the  appearing  of  our  Sav- 
ior Jesus  Christ,  who  hath  abolished  death,  and  hath 
brought  life  and  immortality  to  light  through  the  gospel. 

If  the  word  immortality  had  the  same  significa- 
tion in  these  last  two  passages  as  in  the  first  three 


22  A  SOPHISM  EXPOSED. 

cited,  there  would  be  no  difficulty  in  turning  aside 
their  supposed  force ;  but  it  is  probable  that  it 
does  not  refer  to  the  same  thing.  The  first  three 
come  from  the  Greek  athanasia,  the  root  meaning 
of  which  is  deathless.  The  last  two  come  from  the 
Greek  aphtharsia,  which  is  defined  to  mean  incor- 
ruption.  The  Revised  Version  renders  it  incorrup- 
tfon  instead  of  immortality,  and  so  does  the  Douay 
Translation. 

Leading  authors  on  the  other  side,  such  as 
Miles  Grant  and  Wm.  Sheldon  of  the  Christian 
Advent  Church,  affirm  that  spirit  and  soul  are  not 
synonymous  because  never  translated  from  the 
same  Hebrew  and  Greek  originals ;  and  yet  they 
are  so  forgetful  of  the  rules  of  propriety  and  fair- 
ness as  to  present  the  word  immortality  as  used  in 
Romans  2 : 7  ;  2  Timothy  1 : 10,  as  supposed  evi-  . 
dence  against  their  opponents ;  although,  as  we 
have  seen,  they  never  come  from  the  same  Greek 
word  as  that  found  in  1  Corinthians  15  : 53,  54, 
and  1  Timothy  6 : 16.  Now  to  be  consistent  and 
fair,  they  must  give  up  one  of  these  positions. 
Either  admit  that  the  argument  made  from  Rom- 
ans and  2  Timothy  is  no  proof  whatever  for  the 
mortal-soul  dogma,  or  that  spirit  and  soul  may  be 
sometimes  used  interchangeably  in  the  Bible. 

In  Ephesians  6:24,  aphtharsia  is  rendered  sin- 
cerity, margin  incorrupt  ion,  and  Revised  Version, 
uncorruptness.  Haley  says  concerning  Romans  2 ;  7, 
p.  187,  after  referring  to  the  claim  of  mortal-soul- 
ists: 

To  this  characteristic  sophism,  It  is  sufficient  to  reply 
that,  as  every  scholar  is  aware,  the  Greek  word  used  here 
is  not  "athanasia,"  immortality,  but  "aphtharsia,"  incor- 
ruption,  and  points  to  that  exemption  from  moral  corrup- 
tion which  the  saints  are  "seeking"  here,  and  which  they 
will  fully  attain  in  heaven.  The  passage  does  not  touch 
the  question  of  man's  immortality  at  all. 


THE  ADJECTIVE  IMMORTAL  EXAMINED.          23 

The  adjective  immortal,  is  found  but  once  in 
the  Bible.  See  1  Tim.  1:11: 

Now  unto  the  King  eternal,  immortal,  invisible,  the 
only  wise  God,  be  honor  and  glory  forever  and  ever.  Amen. 

The  Greek  word  here  is  aphthartos  and  in  some 
versions  is  rendered  "immortal,"  in  others  "in- 
corruptible." The  Eevised  and  Syriac  Versions 
use  the  latter  rendering.  But  as  all  admit  that 
God  is  both  incorruptible  and  immortal,  there  is 
no  dispute  over  this  text.  However,  mortal-soul- 
ists  frequently  say  to  their  hearers  and  readers, 
that  over  four  thousand  years  had  passed  away  be- 
fore the  word  immortal  was  found  in  the  literature 
of  the  Church ;  and  then  it  is  applied  to  God  only ! 
Well,  what  of  it?  "Why  it  shows  that  man  is 
wholly  mortal."  Does  it?  Then  it  also  shows 
that  for  more  than  four  thousand  years  God  and 
the  angels  were  mortal  beings  !  That  the  Devil 
with  his  army  of  demons  are  mortals!  That 
Enoch  and  Elijah  are  in  heaven  with  their  natur- 
al bodies,  composed  of  flesh  and  blood  !  This  looks 
too  much  like  talking  solely  for  the  effect  it  will 
have  on  a  certain  class. 

Mortality,  the  opposite  of  immortality,  is  found 
only  in  2  Corinthians  5:4: 

That  mortality  might  be  swallowed  up  of  life. 

That  the  word  here  applies  to  the  body  only, 
and  not  to  the  entire  man,  is  evident  from  the 
context  as  has  already  been  shown.  The  Kevised 
and  Douay  Versions  use  the  adjective  forms  in- 
stead of  the  noun.  "That  what  is  mortal,"  and 
"That  which  is  mortal  may  be  swallowed  up  of 
life." 

The  word  mortal  is  found  six  times  in  the 
Bible.  Before  calling  attention  to  the  passages  in 
which  the  word  is  found,  we  notice  a  sophism  (this 
seems  to  be  the  right  word  to  use)  largely  indulged 
in  by  our  opponents.  Show  us,"  say  they,  "where 


24  BIBLE  USB  OF  MORTAL. 

the  Bible  says  that  man  is  possessed  of  an  im- 
mortal soul  or  spirit."  Well,  if  the  exact  phraseol- 
ogy which  they  demand  must  be  found,  we  cannot 
comply  with  their  request.  Can  they  show  us 
where  the  Bible  says  that  man  is  possessed  of  a 
mortal  soul  or  spirit  ?  If  so,  let  them  give  us 
chapter  and  verse  and  settle  this  question  at  once 
with  the  kind  of  evidence  they  demand  of  us ! 
If  they  fail,  then  must  we  conclude  that  man  is 
neither  mortal  nor  immortal  ? 

The  Bible  use  of  this  word  is  largely  in  favor  of 
the  immortality  of  the  soul,  while  it  affords  no 
valid  support  for  the  other  side.  It  is  applied 
once  to  man,  as  a  whole,  and  four  times  to  the 
body ;  but  never  to  the  soul  or  spirit  which  God 
placed  in  man.  It  first  occurs  in  Job  4:17  : 

Shall  mortal!  man  be  more  just  than  God  ? 

Eliphaz,  the  leader  among  Job's  three  friends, 
is  the  author  of  this  language;  and  while  we 
find  no  difficulty  in  the  phrase,  "mortal  man,"  we 
are  certainly  under  no  obligations  so  far  as  the 
laws  of  evidence  are  concerned,  to  examine  the 
testimony  of  a  worthless  witness.  (See  chapter  1 
on  this  point.)  However,  we  condescend  to  a 
brief  examination,  with  the  desire  and  hope  of 
benefiting  all. 

Synecdoche  is  using  the  name  of  a  part  for  that  of  the 
whole,  the  name  of  the  whole  for  that  of  a  part,  or  a  defi- 
nite number  for  an  indefinite.— Quackenbos. 

This  figure  is  much  used,  and  abounds  in  the 
Bible.  The  body  of  man  is  the  mortal  part.  It  is 
the  grossly  material  part  with  which  we  are  con- 
stantly coming  in  contact,  and  about  which  we 
know  vastly  more  than  we  do  of  the  spirit  within. 
The  body  we  see  always,  while  the  soul  within  is 
invisible.  "For  the  things  which  are  seen  are 
temporal ;  but  the  things  which  are  not  seen  are 
eternal."  It  is,  then,  neither  strange  nor  im- 
proper for  one  who  believes  in  the  immortality  of 


CONCERNING  DIRECT  AFFIRMATIONS.  25 

the  soul  to  apply  this  phrase  to  man  while  he  is  in 
the  mortal  state. 

Again :  It  is  not  directly  affirmed  that  man 
is  mortal,  though  mortal-soulists  refuse  to  believe 
in  the  dogma  of  the  immortality  of  the  soul  with- 
out just  such  an  affirmation  !  The  entire  verse 
simply  contrasts  finite  man  with  a  mortal  body, 
from  an  infinite  and  wholly  immortal  God.  "Shall 
mortal  man  be  more  just  than  God  ?  Shall  a  man 
be  more  pure  than  his  maker  ?" 

So  that,  if  the  statement  came  from  a  valid 
witness,  which  it  does  not,  there  would  be  no  evi- 
dence in  it  against  the  immortality  of  the  soul. 

In  Kom.  6  : 12,  Paul  says : 

Let  not  sin  therefore  reign  in  your  mortal  body,  that 
ye  should  obey  it  in  the  lusts  thereof. 

He  that  raised  up  Christ  from  the  dead  shall  also  quick- 
en your  mortal  bodies  by  his  spirit  that  dwelleth  in  you. 
—Kom.  8:11. 

And  this  mortal  must  put  on  immortality.  And  this 
mortal  shall  have  put  on  immortality,  etc.— 1  Cor.  15:53, 
54. 

Paul  is  treating  upon  the  resurrection  of  the 
body,  and  does  not  apply  the  word  mortal  to  any- 
thing else.  He  has  no  reference  to  the  spirit 
which  goes  to  God  at  death.  Eccles.  12 :  7. 

That  the  life  also  of  Jesus  might  be  made  manifest  in 
our  mortal  flesh.— 2  Cor.  4:11. 

Why  talk  about  "mortal  flesh"  and  "mortal 
bodies,"  if  the  body  is  all  there  is  of  man,  and  when 
every  one  knows  that  it  is  mortal  ?  When  we  con- 
sider that  the  word- is  nowhere  applied  to  the  soul 
or  spirit,  we  have  a  strong  inferential  proof  that 
the  spirit,  or  soul,  is  immortal,  and  hence  will  sur- 
vive the  death  of  the  body  in  a  conscious  state. 

We  are  frequently  told,  by  authors  on  the  oth- 
er side,  that  inferential  evidence  is  not  satisfac- 
tory. They  demand  direct  and  positive  proof. 
But  man  is  either  possessed  of  immortality  or  he 
is  not ;  he  is  either  conscious  or  unconscious  after 


26  INFERENTIAL  EVIDENCE. 

death.  If  wholly  mortal  and,  therefore,  uncon- 
scious after  death,  where  is  the  text  that  states  it 
directly  and  positively  ?  Let  our  opponents  pro- 
duce one  upon  which  they  can  afford  to  squarely 
stand. 

Inferential  or  circumstantial  evidence  is  some- 
times the  best.  A  thing  may  be  directly  and  pos- 
itively affirmed  and  yet  be  false ;  and  it  is  not 
Infrequently  the  case  that  circumstantial  and  in- 
ferential proofs  are  our  best  safeguards— in  fact, 
the  very  means  by  which  error  and  falsehood  are 
exposed.  When  but  one  legitimate  inference  can 
be  drawn,  the  proof  is  as  good  as  the  best.  If,  as 
we  claim,  the  immortality  of  the  soul  is  conceded 
in  the  Bible,  and  supported  by  its  best  witnesses, 
it  is  not  our  privilege,  nor  the  privilege  of  any 
who  accept  the  Bible  as  a  standard  of  evidence,  to 
reject  the  evidence  because  not  framed  in  the  pe- 
culiar phraseology  of  our  choice.  Who  are  we 
that  we  should  dictate  to  the  Infinite  One  in  what 
particular  form  he  must  reveal  his  truth  in  order 
to  induce  us  to  accept  it  ?  The  angels  of  God  are 
immortal  beings,  as  we  have  already  seen,  but  the 
Bible  nowhere  affirms  it  in  language  of  this  kind  ; 
God  is  infinite  in  love  and  power,  but  it  is  not  so 
stated  in  the  Bible. 

Because  God  made  man  "in  his  own  image," 
and  made  "him  a  little  lower  than  the  angels," 
just  as  he  made  Jesus  "a  little  lower  than  the 
angels  for  the  suffering  of  death,"  we  infer  that 
man  is  possessed  of  immortality. 

Because  the  things  of  this  world  alone  do  not 
afford  perfect  peace  and  rest  which  we  so  ardently 
desire;  but  "as  the  hart  panteth  after  water 
brooks,  so  panteth  my  soul  after  thee,  O  God.  My 
soul  thirsteth  for  God,  for  the  living  God  :  When 
shall  I  come  and  appear  before  God  ?"  (Psalms 
42 : 1, 2.)  And  because  God  has  provided  imperish- 


HISTORICAL  EVIDENCE.  27 

able  food  for  man,  which  he  is  capable  of  receiv- 
ing and  assimilating,  and  which  secures  perfect 
peace  and  satisfies  the  most  ardent  longings  of  the 
soul,  we  unavoidably  conclude  that  there  is  some- 
thing more  in  man  than  the  material  elements  of 
this  world. 

Because  God  has  required  us  to  exercise  faith 
in  Him,  and  we  are  able  to  do  it;  to  repent 
towards  Him,  and  we  are  able  to  do  that ;  because 
we  have  a  longing  desire  for  immortality  and  eternal 
life,  and  are  able,  to  an  extent  at  least,  to  compre- 
hend God  ;  and  because  God  has  made  us  directly 
responsible  to  him  for  what  we  say,  do  and  think, 
(Matt.  12 : 36,  37  ;  James  2 : 12 ;  Eccles.  12 : 13,  14 ;  2 
Cor.  5  : 10 ;  Matt.  5  : 27,  28 ;  12  : 35)  we  conclude  that 
the  spirit  which  God  "gave"  and  which  will  "re- 
turn" to  Him  at  death,  (Eccles.  12  : 7)  is  immortal. 


CHAPTER  III. 

HISTORICAL  EVIDENCE-THE  DOCTRINE  OF  IMMOR- 
TALITY ORIGINATED  WITH  GOD. 

Mortal-soulists  affirm  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
immortality  of  the  soul  had  its  origin  with  the 
Egyptians,  that  it  is,  therefore,  "purely  of  heathen 
origin." 

"THE  DOCTRINE  OF  IMMORTALITY,"  by  Whit- 
more,  page  3 : 

It  seems  that  the  Egyptians  not  only  originated  the 
notion  of  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  but  also  held  as  a  rad- 
ical doctrine,  that  evil  was  an  inherent  property  of  mat- 
ter. It  will  he  seen  hereafter,  that  the  modern  doctrine  is 
but  a  refinement  of  the  Egyptian  conception,  and  that  so 
far  as  the  essential  nature  of  man  is  concerned  what  is  now 
popularly  regarded  as  a  "fundamental  article  of  revealed 
religion"  was  held  as  a  radical  doctrine  of  religious  belief 
in  Egypt  three  thousand  years  ago. 

Also  at  the  bottom  of  same  page. 

Although  the  Egyptians  were  the  first  who  taught  the 
doctrine  of  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  etc. 


28  ATHEISM  NOT  MORE  ABSURD. 

In  "THE  HISTORY  OF  AN  IMMORTAL  SOUL," 
by  Elder  S.  S.  Brewer,  pp.  14,  15,  the  writer 
quotes  Herodotus  in  order  to  prove  that  the  Egyp- 
tians were  the  first  to  originate  this  supposed 
error.  But  his  quotation  does'not  prove  it.  Her- 
odotus simply  says  that  he  learned  "these  things 
from  the  Egyptians,"  and  "thought  it  necessary 
to  transcribe  the  result  of"  his  "inquiries."  .  . 
"They  are  also  the  first  of  mankind  who  have  de- 
fended [not  originated.  Author.]  the  immortality 
of  the  soul."  None  of  these  authors  prove  that 
the  Egyptians  originated  the  doctrine  of  the 
immortality  of  the  soul.  They  simply  trace  it 
back  to  the  ancient  Egyptians  and  show  that 
they  believed,  taught  and  defended  it,  and  then 
affirm,  without  evidence,  that  they  originated  the 
doctrine.  This  is  done,  it  is  probable,  in  order  to 
supply  a  missing  link,  and  because  they  are  not 
able  to  go  farther  in  this  direction ;  and  it  would 
not  do,  you  know,  for  them  to  admit  that  the 
belief  and  knowledge  of  immortality  is  inherent 
in  man,  for  that  would  prove  it  to  be  of  God. 

If  this  "notion  of  the  immortality  of  the  soul" 
had  its  origin  with  the  Egyptians,  then  we  are 
asked  to  believe  that  a  set  of  heathen  idolaters— 
dust  mew— composed  wholly  of  "carbon,  oxygen, 
hydrogen,  nitrogen,  sulphur,  phosphorus,  iron 
and  lime,"  actually  originated  the  profound  idea 
of  the  immortality  of  the  soul !  This  is  entirely  too 
wide  a  stretch  for  our  credulity.  To  accept  the 
Atheistic  presumption  of  the  origin  of  this  mate- 
rial world,  and  the  notions  of  R.  G.  Ingersoll  with 
reference  to  the  origin  of  force  (including  that  of 
mind)  would  be  no  greater  tax  on  our  credulity. 

S.  S.  Brewer  begins  to  account  for  the  origin  of 
this  doctrine,  on  page  14  of  his  work,  in  the  fol- 
lowing remarkable  manner : 


JOSEPHUS  AND  PLATO.  29 

But  we  now  return  to  the  origin  of  the  soul's  Immortal- 
ity. We  are  sometimes  referred  to  Joseph  us  as  authority 
in  proof  of  the  soul's  immortality.  Please  mark  the 
authority  he  quotes.  In  the  discourse  accredited  to  Jose- 
phus,  he  says: 

"This  is  the  discourse  concerning  Hades,  wherein  the 
souls  of  all  men  are  confined  until  a  proper  season,  which 
God  hath  determined,  when  he  will  make  a  resurrection  of 
all  men  from  the  dead.  Not  procuring  a  transmigration  of 
souls  from  one  body  to  another,  but  raising  again  those 
very  bodies  which  you  Greeks,  seeing  to  be  dissolved,  do 
not  believe  (their  resurrection.)  But  learn  not  to  disbe- 
lieve it,  for  while  that  the  soul  is  created  and  yet  made 
immortal  by  God,  'according  to  the  doctrine  of  Plato.'  "— 
Josephus,  p.  525. 

You  perceive  that  Josephus  obtains  his  authority  for 
the  soul's  immortality  from  Plato,  who  was  born  430  years 
before  the  Christian  era." 

We  have  Josephus  in  six  volumes,  and  in  vol. 
6,  p.  251,  we  find  the  above  quotation  from  which 
these  words  have  been  omitted.  The  words  "you 
believe"  should  be  inserted  between  the  words 
"while"  and  "that"  near  the  end  of  the  quotation, 
making  it  to  read,  "while  you  believe  that,"  etc., 
instead  of  "while  that  the  soul  is  created,"  etc. 
One  makes  Josephus  to  endorse  the  doctrine  of 
Plato  concerning  the  creation  of  the  soul,  while 
the  other  simply  represents  him  as  referring  to  it 
as  the  belief  of  the  Greeks.  A  wonderful  differ- 
ence, you  see !  Following  this  omission,  and  im- 
mediately after  the  word  "yet,"  should  be  inserted 
the  word  "is"  to  make  it  read  as  it  is  in  Whistson's 
edition.  Now  the  truth  is  that  Josephus  simply 
and  only  refers  to  the  belief  of  the  Greeks  as  being 
"according  to  the  doctrine  of  Plato,"  and  does  not 
even  intimate  that  he  got  his  ideas  of  the  soul's 
immortality  from  that  source !  Why  this  perver- 
sion? 

Dr.  Nelson,  in  his  "CAUSE  AKD  CURB  OF  IN- 
FIDELITY," p.  121,  quoting  -the  words  of  another 
which  he  accepts  as  true,  says : 


30        IMMORTALITY  UNIVERSALLY  BELIEVED. 

Your  argument  would  be  worthy  of  some  consideration, 
were  it  not  for  one  cercumstance,  which  certainly  abates  its 
momentum.  You  say  that  what  the  Israelites  knew  of 
God,  they  learned  of  Plato;  but  Plato  says,  that  what  he, 
and  the  Greeks  in  general  knew  of  the  gods,  they  learned  of 
the  Israelites. 

So  much  for  the  supposed  origin  of  what  our 
friends  call  the  "Platonic  philosophy."  They  have 
certainly  failed  to  prove  that  it  originated  with 
the  Egyptians,  or  that  Josephus  borrowed  it  from 
Plato. 

In  "ABBOTT'S  DICTIONARY  OF  RELIGIOUS 
KNOWLEDGE,  ART,  IMMORTALITY,"  we  have  the 
following  statements: 

Belief  in  the  immortality  of  the  soul  is  almost  univer- 
sal. It  is  true  that  some  tribes  have  been  found  so 
degraded  as  apparently  to  have  exercised  little  or  no 
thought  concerning  the  future;  but  these  afford  a  rare 
and  unimportant  exception  to  a  rule  so  general  that  it 
may,  without  impropriety,  be  deemed  universal. 

Wherever  exceptions  are  found  to  the  rule 
referred  to  by  Abbott,  one  of  two  reasons  may  be 
properly  assigned :  Either  there  is  not  sufficient 
intelligence  to  form  any  conception  of  the  future 
state,  or  they  have  been  led  away  from  it  by  the 
force  of  education.  Among  all  the  vast  multi- 
tudes of  nations  and  tribes  and  peoples,  where 
there  is  sufficient  intelligence  to  admit  of  a  con- 
ception of  God,  and  the  future  state,  and  where 
the  people  have  not  been  educated  out  of  this 
belief,  it  is  found  and  remains  as  a  fundamental 
principle  in  their  religion.  This  is  virtually  con- 
ceded by  our  opponents,  except  in  the  case  of  the 
ancient  Hebrews,  who,  they  claim,  did  not  believe 
in  the  dogma  because  "more  directly  under  the 
teaching  of  divine  inspiration." 

The  ancient  Hebrews  have  left  but  little  on 
record  concerning  the  future  life;  but  we  have 
several  strong  reasons. for  believing  that  they  con- 
ceded the  doctrine  of  the  immortality  of  the  soul 


BELIEF  OF  THE  JEWS.  31 

to  be  true.  So  long  as  it  was  believed  by  the  sur- 
rounding nations,  there  was  no  special  demand 
for  them  to  directly  affirm  and  defend  it.  Jose- 
phus,  the  great  Jewish  historian,  shows  that  a 
belief  in  the  immortality  of  the  soul  was  almost 
universal  among  the  Jews  in  his  time.  See  "ANTI- 
QUITIES OF  THE  JEWS,  Book  18 : 

They  (the  Pharisees)  also  "believe  that  souls  have 
an  immortal  vigor  in  them,  and  that  under  the  earth  there 
will  be  rewards  or  punishments  accordingly  as  they  have 
lived  virtuously  or  viciously  in  this  life ;  on  account  of 
which  doctrines  they  are  able  greatly  to  persuade  the  body 
of  the  people. 

But  the  doctrine  of  the  Sadducees  is  this,  that  souls  die 
with  the  bodies.  But  this  doctrine  is  received  by  but  few. 
But  they  are  able  to  do  almost  nothing  of  themselves;  for 
when  they  become  magistrates  they  addict  themselves  to 
the  notions  of  the  Pharisees,  because  the  multitude  would 
not  otherwise  bear  them. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Essenees  is  this,  that  all  things  are 
best  ascribed  to  God.  They  teach  the  immortality  of 
souls. 

The  Jews  had  had  for  a  great  while  three  sects  of  phil- 
osophy peculiar  to  themselves,  the  sect  of  the  Essenees, 
the  sect  of  the  Saducees,  and  the  third  sort  of  opinions 
was  that  called  Pharisees. 

But  of  the  fourth  sect  of  Jewish  philosophers,  Judas  the 
Galilean  was  the  author.  These  men  agree  in  all  other 
things  with  the  Pharisaic  notions,  but  they  have  an  Inviol- 
able attachment  to  liberty. 

All  nations  and  all,  or  nearly  all,  tribes 
believed  in  the  immortality  of  the  soul.  That 
many  foolish  and  absurd  things  were  held  in  con- 
nection with  this  doctrine  is  no  evidence  that  it  is 
false.  Many  of  the  most  important  truths  of  the 
Christian  religion  have  been  held  in  a  corrupted 
form  by  the  heathen  nations,  such  as  faith  in 
God,  and  in  a  Savior,  who  was  crucified,  resur- 
rected, and  who  ascended  into  heaven.  Because 
of  these  matters  of  belief,  and  many  others  strik- 
ingly similar  to  the  Christian  religion,  it  has  been 


32  ORIGINATED  WITH  GOD. 

affirmed  by  Kersey  Graves  and  others  that  Chris- 
tianity is  of  human  and  heathen  origin,  and 
existed  before  Christ.  That  it  did  have  an  exist- 
ence as  a  revealed  system  of  truth,  prior  to  the 
Christian  era,  we  are  willing  to  admit ;  but  that  it 
was,  in  any  sense,  of  human  and  heathen  origin, 
we  deny. 

That  leading  principles  of  the  Christian  reli- 
gion, though  badly  corrupted,  were  held  by  the 
Orientals,  is  too  plain  to  be  denied ;  and  that  the 
similarity  among  ancient  religions  with  their 
peculiar  and  in  some  cases  striking  resemblance 
to  the  Christian  system  proves  common  origin,  is 
conceded.  But  whence  this  origin  ?  Either  God 
revealed  it  at  an  early  day,  and  the  scriptures  cer- 
tainly teach  that  he  did,  or  there  is  in  the  human 
soul  that  which  imparts  a  knowledge  of  and  a 
desire  for  a  divine  Savior.  Either  one  of  these 
positions  proves  Christianity  to  be  of  divine  ori- 
gin, and  the  same  is  true  of  the  soul's  immortal- 
ity, so  universally  believed  by  the  untutored 
nations  and  tribes  of  the  earth. 

We  commend  the  following  statements  and 
conclusions  as  found  in  "DICK'S  WORKS"  vol.  L, 
pp.  9,  10,  11. 

That  the  thinking  principle  in  man  is  of  an  immortal 
nature,  was  believed  by  the  ancient  Egyptians,  the  Per- 
sians, the  Phoenecians,  the  Scythians,  the  Celts,  the  Druids, 
the  Assyrians,  by  the  wisest  and  most  celebrated  charac- 
ters among  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  and  by  almost  every 
other  ancient  nation  and  tribe  whose  record  has  reached 
our  time.  They  all  embraced  the  idea  that  death  is  not  the 
destruction  of  the  rational  soul,  but  only  its  introduction 
to  a  new  and  unknown  state  of  existence.  The  ancient 
Scythians  believed  that  death  was  only  a  change  of  habit- 
ation; and  the  Magian  sect  which  prevailed  in  Babylonia, 
Media,  Assyria,  and  Persia,  admitted  the  doctrine  of  eter- 
aal  rewards  and  punishments.  The  remains  of  this  sect* 
which  are  scattered  over  Persia  and  India,  still  hold  the 
game  doctrines  without  any  variation,  even  to  this  day. 


THE  UNIVERSAL  BELIEF.  33 

The  descriptions  and  allusions  contained  in  the  ancient 
poets,  are  a  convincing  proof,  that  the  notion  of  the  soul's 
immortality  was  a  universal  opinion  in  the  times  in  which 
they  wrote,  and  among  the  nations  to  which  their  writings 
were  addressed.  Homer's  account  of  the  descent  of 
Ulyssus  into  hell,  and  his  description  of  Minos  in  the 
shades  below,  distributing  justice  to  the  dead  assembled  in 
troops  around  his  tribunal,  and  pronouncing  irrevocable 
judgments,  which  decide  their  everlasting  fate,  demon- 
strate, that  they  entertained  the  belief,  that  virtues  are 
rewarded  and  that  crimes  are  punished,  in  another  state 
of  existence.  The  poems  of  Ovid  and  Virgil  contain  a  va- 
riety of  descriptions  in  which  the  same  opinions  are 
involved. 

There  is  scarcely  a  nation  or  tribe  of  mankind  at  pres- 
ent existing,  however  barbarous  and  untutored,  in  which 
the  same  opinion  does  not  prevail.  The  natives  of  the 
Society  Isles,  the  Friendly  Islands,  and  the  New  Zealand- 
ers,  the  inhabitants  of  the  Pelew  Islands,  the  Kalmuc  tar- 
tars, the  Samoeidans,  the  Birmans,  believe  in  the  conscious 
state  of  existence  for  the  soul  after  death. 

The  Mandingoes,  the  Jaloffs,  the  Feloops,  the  Foulahs, 
the  Moors,  and  all  the  other  tribes  who  have  embraced  the 
Mahometan  Faith,  recognize  the  doctrine  of  the  immortal- 
ity of  the  soul.  The  natives  of  Dahomy  entertain  the  same 
belief.  The  Persians  are  said  to  leave  one  part  of  the 
graves  open,  from  a  belief  that  the  dead  will  be  reanimated 
and  visited  by  angels,  who  will  appoint  them  to  their 
appropriate  abodes  in  a  future  state. 

The  Japanese  believe  that  the  souls  of  men  and  beasts 
are  alike  immortal. 

When  they  die  (the  American  Indians)  they  are  per- 
suaded that  the  Great  Spirit  will  conduct  them  to  this  land 
of  souls.  (Previously  described.) 

(In  everything  the  consent  of  all  nations  is  to  be  ac- 
counted the  law  of  nature,  and  to  resist  it  is  to  resist  the 
voice  of  God.— Cicero.) 

Mortal-soulists  present  some  testimony  from 
the  "Christian  Fathers"  to  sustain  their  belief. 
We  regret  to  state,  what  every  careful  reader  of 
church  history  must  learn,  that  much  contradict- 
ory evidence,  on  some  points,  has  been  furnished 
us  by  the  "Christian  Fathers."  But  it  is  quite 
evident  that  the  introduction  of  mortal-soul  ism 
into  the  primitive  church  was  regarded  as  heresy, 


34  ' 'FALSE  OPINIONS." 

and  the  best  talent  and  authority  of  the  church 
were  employed  to  put  it  down. 

But  also  about  this  time  (A.  D.  249,)  other  men  sprung  up 
in  Arabia  as  the  propagators  of  false  opinions.  These  as- 
serted that  the  human  soul,  as  long  as  the  present  state  of 
the  world  existed,  perished  at  death  and  died  with  the 
body,  but  that  it  would  be  raised  again  with  the  body  at 
the  time  of  the  resurrection.  And  as  a  considerable  coun- 
cil was  held  on  account  of  this,  Origen  being  again  re- 
quested, likewise  here  discussed  the  point  in  question  with 
so  much  force,  that  those  who  had  been  before  led  astray 
completely  changed  their  opinions.— Eusebius,  p.  238. 

This  great  man  (Origen)  was  now  once  more  employed 
in  Arabia  in  confuting  another  error,  namely,  of  those  who 
denied  the  intermediate  state  of  souls,  and  this  he  man- 
aged with  his  usual  success.  —  Millner's  Church  History, 
vol.  I.,  p.  250 

Thus  we  see,  according  to  the  testimony  of 
Eusebius,  the  "father  of  church  history,"  that  the 
mortality  of  the  soul  and  its  consequent  uncon- 
sciousness after  death,  were  regarded  as  "false 
opinions,"  and  an  effort  to  introduce  them  into 
the  church  was  made  as  early  as  249,  A.  D.  George 
Storrs,  it  is  said,  was  the  first  to  revive  these  "false 
opinions,"  in  our  day,  giving  them  publicity  in  a 
paper  called  the  Bible  Examiner  in  1844-45. 

Paul  was  a  leading  representative  of  the  faith 
of  the  early  Cristian  church,  and  in  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles  (23 : 6-8)  we  have  a  plain  statement 
of  his  faith  on  this  question  : 

But  when  Paul  perceived  that  the  one  part  were  Saddu- 
cees,  and  the  other  Pharisees,  he  cried  out  in  the  council, 
Men  and  brethren,  I  am  a  Pharisee,  the  son  of  a  Pharisee! 
of  the  hope  and  resurrection  of  the  dead  I  am  called  in 
question.  And  when  he  had  so  said,  there  arose  a  dissen- 
sion between  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees;  and  the  multi- 
tude was  divided.  For  the  Sadducees  say  that  there  is  no 
resurrection,  neither  angel,  nor  spirit;  but  the  Pharisees 
confess  both. 

Paul  well  knew  what  his  words  would  convey 
to  both  Pharisees  and  Sadducees ;  and  to  affirm 
that  he  only  intended  to  announce  his  belief  in 
the  resurrection  without  any  reference  to  the 


PAUL  AND  PHARISEES.  36 

nature  of  man  and  what  is  required  to  constitute 
that  resurrection,  is  to  admit  that  he  purposely 
deceived  the  people  with  reference  to  the  true 
character  of  his  faith.  More  than  this,  Paul  says, 
"Of  the  hope  and  resurrection  of  the  dead  I  am 
called  in  question."  What  was  the  "hope"  of  the 
dead  according  to  the  belief  of  the  Pharisees  ? 
That  they  would  live  as  conscious,  spirit  entities, 
after  death,  enjoying  a  comparative  state  of  peace 
and  bliss  till  the  time  of  the  resurrection,  if, 
indeed,  they  had  been  faithful  to  God. 

"But,"  say  our  opponents,  "Paul  could  not 
have  been  a  Pharisee  in  belief  for  Christ  con- 
demned the  doctrine  of  the  Pharisees."  (See 
Matt.  16:6-12.)  It  is  admitted  that  both  the 
Pharisees  and  Sadducees  held  to  dangerous  and 
false  doctrines.  That  of  the  Sadducees  was  the 
mortal-soul  dogma,  while  that  of  the  Pharisees 
was  hypocrisy.  "But  the  doctrine  of  the  Saddu- 
cees is  this,  that  souls  die  with  the  bodies."— 
Josephus. 

In  the  mean  time,  when  there  were  gathered  together 
an  innumerable  multitude  of  people,  insomuch  that  they 
trode  upon  one  another,  he  began  to  say  unto  his  disciples 
first  of  all,  Beware  ye  of  the  leaven  of  the  Pharisees,  which 
is  hypocrisy.— Luke  12:1. 

Then  spake  Jesus  to  the  multitude,  and  to  his  disciples, 
Saying,  The  scribes  and  the  Pharisees  sit  in  Moses'  seat. 
All  therefore  whatsoever  they  bid  you  observe,  that  ob- 
serve and  do;  but  do  not  ye  after  their  works  for  they  say, 
and  do  not.  For  they  bind  heavy  burdens,  and  grievous  to 
be  borne,  and  lay  them  on  men's  shoulders;  but  they  them- 
selves will  not  move  them  with  one  of  their  fingers.— 
Matt.  23:1-4. 

It  is  clear,  then,  that  Paul  could  have  believed 
with  the  Pharisees  on  the  nature  and  destiny  of 
man  without  accepting  their  hypocrisy,  pride,  sel- 
fishness and  arrogance.  (See  Matt.  23rd  chapter.) 

Below,  we  present  notes  which  were  prepared 
by  a  co-worker,  as  a  fitting  close  to  this  depart- 
ment of  our  subject. 


36  WHENCE  THIS  UNIVERSAL  BELIEF. 

Whence  comes  this  universal  belief  ?  Can  it  come  from 
anything  less  than  a  universal  cause  ?  If  not,  it  must  come 
from  God,  the  only  universal  cause  with  which  we  are  ac- 
quainted. Apply  to  this  evidence  the  calculus  of  probabili- 
ties, and  it  will  be  found  to  be  demonstrated,  that  the  soul 
is  immortal. 

Either  God  revealed  the  immortality  of  the  soul  to  the 
first  family  or  families  of  the  earth,  or  he  has  implanted  in 
the  human  mind  an  intuitive  knowledge  that  it  is  immor- 
tal; upon  no  other  ground  can  we  account  for  the  univer- 
sal belief  of  all  nations  in  the  immortality  of  the  soul. 

If  it  is  untrue,  and  not  natural  to  man  to  believe  error  in 
preference  to  truth,  whence  comes  this  universal  belief  of 
all  nations?  It  must  have  some  adequate  cause  assigned 
for  its  existence,  if  the  truth  of  the  doctrine  of  immortal- 
ity is  denied.  What  is  that  cause  ?  The  most  civilized  and 
enlightened  and  the  most  barbarous  and  degraded  agree  as 
to  this  doctrine.  What  is  the  cause  of  this  agreement  if 
not  the  truth  of  the  belief  so  universally  found  ?  Those 
who  deny  the  explanation  here  given,  must  furnish  some 
other. 

Error  is  continually  changing,  but  this  has  been  the 
same  from  the  earliest  times  till  now.  Man's  immortality 
and  existence  after  death,  being  one  of  the  truths  of  the 
unchangeable  God,  has  not  changed,  whatever  the  dress  in 
which  different  nations  have  clothed  the  thought. 

For  so  grand  and  sweeping  and  universal  a  belief,  there 
can  be  no  adequate  cause  assigned,  except  the  fact  that  the 
belief  is  true.  It  is  the  voice  of  God,  either  revealed  to  the 
first  men  of  earth,  or  to  every  nation  since  that  time,  de- 
claring with  unmistakable  plainness  that  man  is  immortal. 

Universality  of  sentiment  argues  God-given  truth.  It 
could  not  be  otherwise.  Nothing  but  truth  is  universal  in 
essence  except  it  be  the  God  of  truth ;  and  we  prove  his 
existence  in  the  same  way  in  which  we  prove  that  the  soul 
is  immortal;  viz.,  by  the  universal  consent  of  mankind. 

That  an  error  should  have  been  universally  received, 
from  the  earliest  dawn  of  our  historical  knowledge  to  the 
present  time  is  unreasonable;  especially  is  this  so,  when 
we  consider  that  there  has  been  no  effort  universally  made 
to  perpetuate  this  error.  • 

Universally  accepted  sentiments  without  any  natural 
cause  for  such  acceptation,  argue  an  inspirational  cause 
for  it.  What  man  has  not  caused  and  cannot,  some  higher 
power  must  have  caused.  Man  has  not  and  could  not  have 
caused  the  universal  acceptation  by  mankind  of  a  belief  in 
the  immortality  of  the  soul;  God,  therefore,  must  have 
produced  that  effect. 


SCIENCE  AND  IMMORTALITY.  37 

From  the  foregoing  evidences,  and  many  more 
which  might  be  produced,  but  one  proper  conclu- 
sion can  be  reached,  viz.,  that  man  is  possessed  of 
immortality. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

SCIENTIFIC  EVIDENCES  CONSIDERED— THE  TRUE 
PROVINCE  OF  SCIENCE-IT  CAN  FURNISH  NO 
VALID  SUPPORT  FOR  THE  DOCTRINE  THAT  MAN 
IS  WHOLLY  MORTAL  AND  UNCONSCIOUS  AFTER 
DEATH. 

In  Chapter  II.,  we  presented  several  reasons 
for  believing  in  the  immortality  of  the  soul  which 
may  be  properly  denominated  scientific.  But  as 
Adventist  authors  claim  that  science  supports 
their  side  of  the  question,  we  give  to  this  depart- 
ment of  the  subject  a  more  extended  notice. 

The  writer  is  not  a  man  of  science.  He 
makes  no  pretensions  in  that  direction.  But 
when  an  effort  is  made  to  make  science  speak  in 
favor  of  the  mortal-soul  dogma  and  unconscious- 
ness after  death,  he  believes  that  he  may  safely 
speak  in  refutation  of  the  claim;  and  that  it 
becomes  his  duty  to  examine  the  character  of  the 
testimony  adduced. 

First,  we  call  the  reader's  attention  to  some  of 
the  points  sought  to  be  made  in  the  chapter 
referred  to  above. 

If  man  is  wholly  mortal,  then,  as  already 
stated,  he  belongs  entirely  to  this  world — is  a 
creature  of  time  only  and  not  of  eternity.  Hence 
it  is  scientifically  impossible  for  him  to  think  or 
talk  about  an  eternal  or  immortal  state.  How 
can  he  think  or  talk  about  that  of  which  he  can 
have  no  conception  ?  And  how  can  he  have  any 
conception  of  that  which  is  immeasurably  beyond 
and  entirely  outside  of  the  domain  in  which  God 
has  placed  him  ? 


38  LAWS  OF  ADAPTATION. 

Science  deals  largely  with  the  laws  of  adapta- 
tion. The  needs  of  the  mortal  body  are  supplied 
with  mortal  food.  The  very  elements  for  which 
we  have  such  a  strong  desire  (called  appetite)  are 
found  in  the  composition  of  our  bodies  ;  and,  phys- 
ically, we  cannot  desire  anything  else,  because 
there  is  nothing  else  in  our  bodies  to  produce  that 
desire ;  and  therefore,  no  other  kind  of  food  is 
needed.  But  the  mind  and  soul  reach  out  after 
that  which  is  eternal,  incorruptible  and  immortal 
in  its  character.  Hence  there  is  a  proper  adapta- 
tion between  the  soul  or  mind  of  man  and  the  im- 
mortal food  provided  in  the  gospel.  He  who 
accepts  the  Bible  record  as  true,  and  per  conse- 
quence, concedes  that  the  spiritual  food  provided 
in  the  gospel  was  prepared  in  the  love  and  wisdom 
of  God  for  man,  should  be  fully  prepared  to  admit 
that  man  is  possessed  of  immortality.  If  not, 
there  is  no  adaptation  between  the  being  who  is 
to  be  fed  and  the  food  which  is  to  be  given.  Thus 
the  doctrine  of  mortal-soulists  as  set  forth  by  Ad- 
ventists  and  Christadelphians,  renders  man  wholly 
incapable  of  obeying  the  requirements  of  the  gos- 
pel, and  is  in  direct  conflict  with  the  laws  of  adap- 
tation ;  hence  if  the  Bible  be  true,  this  doctrine  is 
false,  and  opposed  to  the  facts  and  principles  of 
science. 

In  the  discussion  held  between  Miles  Grant  of 
Boston,  Massachusetts,  and  Harry  A.  Long  of 
Glasgow,  Scotland,  February,  1890,  the  former 
affirmed  the  following  proposition : 

Resolved,  That  the  Bible  and  Science  teach  that  man  is 
wholly  mortal  and  unconscious  between  death  and  the  res- 
urrection. 

Mr.  Grant  devoted  part  of  one  speech  only  to 
the  introduction  of  scientific  evidence,  which  is 
to  be  found  on  pp.  43,  44,  45.  The  first  is  intro- 
duced in  the  following  manner ; 


VOICE  OF  SCIENCE.  39 

What  is  the  voice  of  science  on  this  subject?  Henry 
Drummond,  "NATURAL  LAW  IN  THE  SPIRITUAL  WORLD,"  p. 
223:  "Unprejudiced  philosophy  is  compelled  to  reject  the 
idea  of  an  individual  immortality,  and  of  a  personal  con- 
tinuance after  death."  Quoted  from  Buchner.  I  thank 
God  Science  and  the  Bible  are  in  perfect  harmony,  when  we 
have  true  science. 

We  have  Prof.  Drummond's  work,  "NATURAL 
LAW  IN  THE  SPIRITUAL  WORLD,"  and  after  some 
searching  found  the  quotation  referred  to  on  p. 
162.  The  one  we  have  is  for  April,  1888,  No.  41. 

One  might  easily  he  led  to  suppose  from  the 
manner  in  which  Mr.  Grant  uses  this  testimony 
that  Prof.  Drummond  endorses  the  quotation  from 
Buchner,  but  he  does  not.  He  is  writing  on  the 
subject  of  "Eternal  Life,"  and  claims  all  the  way. 
through,  that  all  who  form  a  proper  relation  to 
God  here,  will  continue  to  live  evermore.  On  p. 
167,  Prof.  Drummond  says : 

In  short,  this  is  a  correspondence  which  at  once  satis- 
fies the  demands  of  Science  and  Religion.  In  mere  quan- 
tity it  is  different  from  every  other  correspondence  known. 
Setting  aside  everything  else  in  Religion,  everything  ad- 
ventitious, local  and  provisional;  dissecting  into  the  bone 
and  marrow  we  find  this— a  correspondence  which  can  never 
break  with  an  Environment  which  can  never  change.  Here 
is  a  relation  established  with  Eternity.  The  passing  years 
lay  no  limiting  band  on  it.  Corruption  injures  it  not.  It  sur- 
vives death.  It,  and  it  only,  will  stretch  beyond  the  grave 
and  be  found  inviolate— 

"When  the  moon  is  old, 

And  the  stars  are  cold, 
And  the  books  of  the  Judgment  Day  unfold." 

Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  Prof.  Drummond's 
work  is  not  in  harmony  with  the  views  of  mortal- 
soulists,  for  he  advocates  the  immortality  of  all 
the  children  of  God,  at  least,  and  he  is  in  direct 
conflict  with  the  claims  and  doctrine  of  the  mater- 
ialist. He  is  writing  from  a  scientific  point  of 
view,  using  Herbert  Spencer's  definition  of  what 
would  constitute  Eternal  Life,  as  a  basis.  He 
introduces  his  subject  in  the  following  manner: 


40  SCIENCE  AND  ETERNAL 

One  of  the  most  startling  achievements  of  recent  sci- 
ence is  a  definition  of  Eternal  Life.  To  the  religious  mind 
this  is  a  contribution  of  immense  moment.  For  eighteen 
hundred  years  only  one  definition  of  Life  Eternal  was 
before  the  world.  Now  there  are  two. 

Through  all  these  centuries  revealed  religion  had  this 
doctrine  to  itself.  Ethics  had  a  voice  as  well  as  Christian- 
ity on  the  question  of  the  "summum  bonum;"  Philosophy 
ventured  to  speculate  on  the  Being  of  a  God.  But  no 
source  outside  Christianity  contributed  anything  to  the 
doctrine  of  Eternal  Life.  Apart  from  Revelation,  this 
great  truth  was  unguaranteed.  It  was  the  one  thing  in  the 
Christian  system  that  most  needed  verification  from  with- 
out, yet  none  was  forthcoming.  And  never  has  any  fur- 
ther light  been  thrown  upon  the  question  why  in  its  very 
nature  the  Christian  Life  should  be  Eternal.  Christianity 
itself  even  upon  this  point  has  been  obscure.  Its  decision 
upon  the  bare  fact  is  authoritative  and  specific.  But  as  to 
what  there  is  in  the  Spiritual  Life  necessarily  endowing  it 
with  the  element  of  Eternity,  the  maturest  theology  is  all 
but  silent.  It  has  been  reserved  for  modern  biology  at 
once  to  defend  and  illuminate  this  central  truth  of  the 
Christian  faith.  Pages  149, 150. 

Adventists  claim  that  we  will  not  receive  eter- 
nal life  until  the  resurrection ;  but  Prof.  Drum- 
mond  claims  (in  harmony  with  the  teachings  of 
the  New  Testament,  we  believe, )  that  it  begins 
here  when  we  bring  ourselves  into  harmony  with 
God,  the  Eternal  One,  through  obedience  to  His 
spiritual  laws.  - 

On  p.  264,  "ART,  CLASSIFICATION,  "Prof.  Drum- 
mond  is  seeking  to  show  that  while  morality  and 
purity  are  commendable,  they  cannot  produce 
eternal  life.  He  says : 

On  the  one  hand,  there  being  no  such  thing  as  spontan- 
eous generation,  his  moral  nature,  however  it  may  encour- 
age it,  cannot  generate  life;  while,  on  the  other,  his  high 
organization  can  never  in  itself  result  in  life,  life  being  al- 
ways the  cause  of  organization  and  never  the  effect  of  it." 

Adventist  authors  teach  that  organization  pro- 
duces mind,  life  and  consciousness.  It  is  plain,  then 
that  "NATURAL  LAW  IN  THE  SPIRITUAL  WORLD" 
is  against  the  doctrine  of  the  mortal-soulist.  As 


SCIENTISTS  AND  SCIENCE.  41 

to  the  quotation  from  Buchner,  it  is  only  part  of 
what  Prof.  Drummond  furnishes,  and  is  but  the 
strong  expression  of  opinion  at  the  best.  The 
opinions  and  inferences  of  scientists  and  science 
itself,  "true  science,"  (which  Mr.  Grant  says  is 
always  in  harmony  with  the  Bible)  are  not  always 
identical.  Just  as  the  opinions  and  teachings  of 
theologians  are  sometimes  in  conflict  with  the 
facts  and  truths  of  the  Bible,  so  are  the  opinions 
and  teachings  of  scientists  sometimes  in  conflict 
with  science.  Again,  there  is  no  more  room  ir» 
Buchner's  philosophy,  as  furnished  by  Mr.  Grant, 
for  a  resurrection  state,  and  conscious  existence 
therein,  than  there  is  for  consciousness  immedi- 
ately after  death.  To  him,  death  ends  all.  Is 
this  the  kind  of  science  for  which  Mr.  Grant 
thanks  God  because  of  its  harmony  with  the 
Bible? 

Mr.  Grant's  next  quotation  is  from  Prof.  Lee- 
body : 

The  doctrine  of  immortality  cannot  be  proved  by  science 
Another  opinion,  which,  if  true,  by  no  means 
proves  that  science  teaches  that  man  is  wholly 
mortal  and  unconscious  between  death  and  the 
resurrection.  If  the  doctrine  of  immortality  can 
not  be  proved  by  science,  then  this  witness  is  as 
much  opposed  to  immortality  in  the  resurrection 
as  it  is  to  its  existence  in  man  prior  to  that  time. 
Hence  it  proves  entirely  too  much  for  Mr.  Grant 
and  all  others  who  believe  the  righteous  will  be 
raised  to  immortality.  The  proper  question  is  not 
whether  scienceproves  the  doctrine  of  immortality; 
but  is  the  doctrine  in  harmony  with  its  facts  and 
truths  ?  If  it  is,  it  is  enough.  Can  we  prove,  by 
science  alone,  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection, 
and  the  immortality  of  the  children  of  God  at  that 
time?  But  when  we  accept  these  doctrines  in  the 
light  of  revelation,  they  are  found  to  be  in  har- 
mony with  the  facts  and  truths  of  science. 


42  DRS.  YOUNG  AND  LEIDY. 

Next,  we  have  the  opinions  of  Dr.  C.  A.  Young, 
Professor  of  Anatomy  in  Princeton  College,  N.  J. 
It  must  be  frankly  admitted  that  what  is  known  about 
the  functions  of  the  brain  and  nervous  system,  does  to  a 
certain  extent,  tend  to  make  it  difficult  to  believe  in  the 
immortality  of  the  personal  consciousness. 

What  kind  of  proof  is  this  ?  Certain  things 
are  "known  of  the  functions  of  the  brain  and  ner- 
vous system,"  which  does,  "to  a  certain  extent," 
(but  to  what  extent  Dr.  Young  does  not  say) 
"tend  to  make  it  difficult  to  believe  in  the  immor- 
tality of  the  personal  consciousness."  That  there 
is  much  concerning  the  brain  and  nervous  system 
which  scientists  do  not  yet  know  will  be  conceded. 
And  for  aught  we  know,  the  unknown  is  much 
greater  than  the  known,  which,  if  true,  renders 
the  scientist  incapable  of  passing,  with  any  degree 
of  certainty  upon  the  "immortality  of  the  personal 
consciousness."  Mr.  Grant  is  certainly  aware  that 
it  is  this  unknown  quantity  in  science  which  has 
caused  so  many  erroneous  opinions  and  conclu- 
sions, many  of  which  have  been  reversed  with  the 
increase  of  knowledge.  However,  Dr.  Young  is 
very  modest  in  his  statements.  It  is  not  impossi- 
ble to  believe  it,  but  what  little  is  known  in  one 
particular  direction,  has  a  tendeney  to  make  it 
difficult.  I  wonder  if  what  is  known  by  scientists 
does  not  make  it  equally  difficut  to  believe  in  the 
conception  of  Christ — the  Christ  who  dwelt  with 
the  Father  in  glory  before  the  world  was— as 
stated  in  the  New  Testament  Scriptures  ? 

The  next  testimony  adduced  is  from  Dr.  Joseph 
Leidy,  Professor  of  Anatomy  and  Zoology  in  the 
University  of  Pennsylvania : 

Personal  consciousness  is  a  condition  of  each  and  every 
living  animal  ranging  from  microscopic  forms  to  man 
The  condition  Is  observed  to  close  at  death ;  and  I  know  of 
no  facts  of  modern  science  which  make  it  otherwise  than 
difficult  to  believe  in  the  persistence  of  that  condition, 
that  is,  "the  immortality  of  the  personal  existence." 


PERSONAL  CONSCIOUSNESS.  43 

This  needs  no  special  examination  as  it  is  very 
similar  to  what  we  have  already  disposed  of.  It 
may  be  well,  however,  for  the  reader  to  note,  that 
to  know  that  personal  consciousness  ceases  at  death 
is,  in  the  very  nature  of  the  case,  beyond  the  prov- 
ince of  scientists.  That  Dr.  Leidy  himself  was 
conscious  of  uncertainty  concerning  that  which  he 
affirmed,  is  evident  from  the  modifying  words 
which  he  immediately  adds:  "And  I  know  of  no 
facts  of  modern  science  which  make  it  otherwise 
than  difficult  to  believe  in  the  persistence  of  that 
condition,"  etc.  To  believe  that  conscious  exist- 
ence positively  closes  at  death,  and  at  the  same 
time  that  "the  immortality  of  the  personal  exist- 
ence" may  continue,  is  impossible. 

The  next  and  last  testimony  introduced  by 
Mr.  Grant  is  from  Lester  F.  Ward,  Smithsonian 
Institute,  Washington,  D.  C.: 

Consciousness,  when  scientifically  examined,  reveals 
itself  as  a  quality  of  brain.  .  .  .  It  is  a  universal  induc- 
tion of  science,  that  modification  of  brain  is  accompanied 
by  modification  of  consciousness,  and  that  the  destruction 
of  brain  results  in  the  destruction  of  consciousness.  No 
exception  of  this  law  has  ever  been  observed. 

Mr.  Ward  uses  three  sentences  in  presenting 
his  views  of  the  teachings  of  science  on  this  sub- 
ject, as  furnished  by  Mr.  Grant.  From  these 
views,  as  is  well  known,  many  earnest  students  of 
science  dissent.  It  is  the  peculiar  province  and 
duty  of  scientists  to  furnish  us  with  truths  and 
facts  concerning  this  material  world.  When  they 
have  done  this  these  same  facts  and  truths  be- 
come the  common  property  of  all.  Were  this  not 
so,  we  would  be  required  to  blindly  accept  the 
opinions  and  conclusions  of  men  who  have  furn- 
ished us  with  abundant  evidence  of  their  fallibil- 
ity in  common  with  all  other  professors.  Scient- 
ists, we  need  hardly  affirm,  hold  to  many  conflict- 
ing opinions  and  announce  many  conflicting  con- 


44  CONFLICTING  OPINIONS. 

elusions.  As  ministers  of  the  gospel  do  not  always 
teach  the  same  doctrine,  though  they  appeal  to  the 
same  standard  of  authority,  so  scientists  do  not  al- 
ways draw  the  same  inferences  from  the  revelations 
of  science.  When  controversy  occurs  among  pro- 
fessed Christians,  it  must  be  settled,  if  settled  at 
all,  by  a  direct  appeal  to  the  Bible,  their  standard 
of  authority,  and  not  by  what  the  preachers  may 
say.  When  it  is  needful  to  determine  what  are 
the  teachings  of  science  on  any  particular  topic,  it 
is  necessary  to  appeal  to  the  principles  of  science, 
rather  than  to  the  opinions  of  its  devotees.  Why 
should  we  place  implicit  confidence  in  the  un- 
proved statements  of  the  devotee  of  science  any 
more  than  in  the  unproved  statements  of  the  min- 
ister of  the  gospel  ? 

The  question  involved  in  the  above  quotation 
is,  substantially,  the  one  passed  upon  by  Mr.  R.  G. 
Ingersoll  in  his  lecture  on  "  THE  GODS.  "Mr.  Inger- 
soll  says : 

Thought  is  a  form  of  force.  We  walk  with  the  same 
force  with  which  we  think.  Man  is  an  organism,  that 
changes  several  forms  of  force  into  thought  force.  Man  is 
a  machine  into  which  we  put  what  we  call  food,  and  pro- 
duce what  we  call  thought.  Think  of  that  wonderful  chem- 
istry by  which  bread  was  changed  into  the  divine  tragedy 
of  Hamlet. 

R.  S.  Dement,  in  a  work  entitled  "INGERSOLL, 
BEECHER  AND  DOGMA,"  makes  a  telling  reply  to 
Mr.  Ingersoll,  a  part  of  which  we  herewith  pre- 
sent. Mr.  Dement's  work  shows  him  to  be  an  able 
and  earnest  student  of  science,  and  withal,  an 
independent  thinker.  Referring  to  Mr.  Ingersoll's 
assertions,  he  says : 

The  question  which  he  disposes  of  here  so  summarily,  I 
need  hardly  state,  is  one  with  which  the  greatest  minds 
have  been  struggling  for  centuries;  the  brightest  lights  of 
his  own  philosophical  household— his  very  household  gods, 
as  it  were— have  trembled  in  the  presence  of  the  awful 
responsibility  of  pronouncing  upon  it;  and  yet,  with  all  the 
assurance  of  a  mountebank,  this  man  simply  waves  hia 


INGERSOLL  ANSWERED.  45 

quill  In  air,  It  poises  but  a  moment,  descends,  traces  a  few 
brief  lines  on  the  page,  and  lo!  the  mystery  of  mysteries  is 
solved! 

Through  all  the  years  of  the  past,  In  which  scientists 
have  wrestled  with  fact  and  philosophy,  the-  principle  in- 
volved here  has  exhausted  the  highest  resources  of  all 
schools.  In  this  struggle  have  been  numbered  the  bright- 
est geniuses  and  most  profound  philosophers,  the  astute 
scholars  of  the  world.  Honest,  sincere,  noble,  genuine 
men  have  devoted  their  lives  to  this  one  great  problem 
that  underlies  all  others. 

It  has  appeared  in  a  multitude  of  forms,  and  has  been 
considered  from  as  many  different  standpoints. 

It  is  presented  here  In  its  latest  form  which  resolves 
itself  into  this:  Whether  the  action  of  the  brain  causes 
thought,  or  whether  thought,  an  extraneous  something 
which  we  cannot  comprehend,  causes  the  action  of  the 
brain. 

But  the  clouds  which  have  so  long  obscured  the  horizon 
of  faith  have,  at  last,  been  dispelled  by  the  sunlight  of  sci- 
ence, thank  God,  and  now  we  may  walk  out  in  the  morning 
of  the  glorious  day!  The  path  is  very  plain  and  very  sim- 
ple. We  have  only  to  start  right,  and  then  keep  straight 
ahead.  Truths  that  are  of  most  value  are  usually 
expressed  in  simplest  form;  they  are  seldom  found  in  the 
labyrinthine  depths  of  indefinite  metaphysics. 

Now,  had  Mr.  Ingersoll  even  consulted  the  very  primer 
l>f  science,  he  would  have  found,  standing  out  prominently, 
as  the  first  letter  of  its  alphabet,  this  incontrovertible  truth 
—Matter  is  inert. 

Had  he  taken  the  trouble  to  consult  Prof.  Bain,  who  is 
the  acknowledged  leader  of  the  most  recent  school  of  ma- 
terialists,—a  school  which  embraces  the  acute  scholars  and 
brightest  minds  of  that  philosophy — he  would  have  found 
even  him  admitting  that  matter  ia  inert  and  cannot  origi- 
nate force. 

Had  he  read  a  little  farther  in  his  primer  he  would  have 
found  that  there  are  but  two  things  in  the  universe- 
matter  and  mind. 

It  would  have  required  but  a  very  gentle  exercise  of 
his  reasoning  faculties  to  show  him  that  since  matter  is 
inert  and  cannot  originate  force  or  motion,  and  mind  is  the 
only  other  existence  in  the  universe,  force  or  motion  must 
emanate  from  mind. 

And  then  he  could,  surely,  have  endured  the  further 
mental  effort  necessary  to  show  him  that  (as  he  had 
already  committed  himself  to  the  proposition  that  thought 
is  a  form  of  force)  thought  must  emanate  from  mind,  not 
matter,  or  bread,  as  he  puts  it. 


16          VIEW  ED  FROM  ANOTHER  STANDPOINT. 

And  all  this  without  going  beyond  the  very  primer  of 
science. 

Now,  as  Mr.  Ingersoll  and  all  who  hold  with 
him  on  the.  views  expressed  in  the  above  quota- 
tion, are  fairly  and  fully  answered,  let  us  view  the 
question  from  another  standpoint. 

The  stated  position  of  mortal-soulists  is  that 
mind  results  from  organization.  If  this  position 
is  correct,  scientifically  examined,  then  organiza- 
tion is  the  cause  and  mind  the  effect. 

Causes  are  always  equal,  or  superior  to  their 
effects.  Effects  do  not  rise  up  and  assume  control 
of  causes.  This  would  be  a  complete  reversal  of 
the  principles  of  science;  and  yet,  as  we  may 
easily  learn  from  observation  and  our  own  exper- 
ience, the  mind  is  vastly  superior  to  the  body,  that 
it  directs  and  controls  the  body.  And  when  we 
read  the  many  plain  declarations  of  competent 
authors  in  proof  of  this  position,  they  are  found  to 
be  in  complete  harmony  with  our  own  experience. 

The  mind  acts  as  clearly  and  distinctly  on  the  body,  as 
either  chemical,  mechanical  or  vital  agency.— "POWER  OF 
THE  Souu  OVER  THE  BODY,"  by  DP.  Geo.  Moore,  M.  R.  0.  P.  p- 
164. 

Our  passions  are  the  grand  conservators  as  well  as  the 
disturbers  of  the  heatlhy  action  of  our  bodies;  and  they 
exercise  so  direct  an  influence  over  the  functions  of  life  as 
to  be  properly  classed  with  medical  agents.  Indeed,  they 
often  act  with  no  less  power  than  the  most  heroic  medi- 
cines, and  are  as  rapid,  and  sometimes  as  fatal  in  their 
active  operation,  as  Prussic  acid,  or  any  other  deadly  poi- 
son. Ib.,  224. 

The  miod  acts  on  the  ultimate  vessels  in  which  the 
changes  of  the  blood  are  effected.  Who  has  not  felt  the 
flash  of  thought  suffusing  the  cheek,  quickening  the  heart 
and  kindling  the  eye  ?  We  all  acknowledge  by  the  blushes 
of  love  and  pride  and  shame,  or  by  the  cold  and  pallor  of 
our  fears,  that  the  affections  of  the  mind  possess  dominion 
in  the  citadel  of  life,  and  permanently  influence  the  whole 
economy  of  our  bodies.—" HEALTH  DISEASE  AND  REMEDY/' 
p.  137. 


MIND  CONTROLS  BODY.  47 

Thus  we  find  that  the  action  of  medicine  is  vastly  mod- 
ified by  the  state  of  the  mind,  and  by  the  habitual  activity 
of  the  brain,  which  in  some  measure  accounts  for  the 
anomalies  so  often  witnessed  in  the  practice  of  physic, 
medicines  in  opposite  states  of  feeling  producing  contrary 
effects  on  functions.— Ibid  p.  138. 

We  meet  with  many  instructive  instances,  proving  that 
mental  influence  may  often  be  made  available  in  the  cure 
of  disease.— ''BRITISH  AND  FOREIGN  MEDICAL  REVIEW,"  1847. 

Not  a  thought,  not  an  idea,  not  an  affection  or  feeling 
of  the  mind  can  be  excited  without  positive  change  in  the 
brain  and  in  the  secretions;  for  every  variation  in  the 
state  of  the  whole  or  any  portion,  of  the  nervous  system,  is 
of  course  accompanied  by  a  corresponding  change  in  those 
organs  and  functions  which  it  furnishes  with  energy.- 

"POWER  OF  THE  SOUL  OVER  THE  BODY."  p.  163. 

The  state  of  the  blood  on  which  health  mainly  depends 
is  influenced  almost  as  much  by  our  feelings  as  by  our 
food.— Ib.,  p.  234. 

Very  many  diseases  have  a  mental  origin,  and  perhaps 
there  is  no  cause  of  corporeal  disease  more  clearly  made 
out,  or  more  certainly  effective,  than  protracted  anxiety 
and  distress  of  mind.  Our  passions  and  emotions  also,  nay, 
even  some  of  our  better  impulses,  when  strained  or  per- 
verted, tend  to  our  physical  destruction.— "WATSON'S  LEC- 
TURES ON  THE  PRINCIPLES  AND  PRACTICE  OF  PHYSIC."  p.  59. 

Fear  and  anxiety  diminish  the  action  of  the  lungs,  im- 
pede the  changes  among  the  ultimate  molecules  of  our  bod- 
ies, interrupt  all  the  secretions  except  that  of  water,  and 
produce  a  cold,  harsh  and  pallid  state  of  the  skin.  The 
genial  passions,  however,  operate  in  a  manner  quite  the 
reverse,  and  a  man  whose  affections  are  in  a  prosperous 
condition,  has  rarely  occasion  to  complain  of  functional 
inactivity.  But  all  of  our  emotions  are  capable  of  destroy- 
ing life  if  carried  to  excess,  and  therefore  they  all,  more  or 
less,  interfere  with  the  proper  action  of  that  center  of 
sympathy,  the  stomach,  by  accumulating  irritability  in  the 
brain,  while  diminishing  the  energy  of  that  nerve  action  by 
which  organic  functions  are  carried  on.— "HEALTH,  DIS- 
EASE AND  REMEDY."  by  Dr.  Geo.  Moore,  p.  136. 

A  soul  that  condemns  its  own  conduct  is  sure  to  pro- 
duce disorders  of  the  nervous  system,  and  hence  also  of  the 
blood  in  all  its  vital  operations.  There  is  but  one  cause  of 
misery,  disease,  and  death  to  man.  Let  us  shun  that  and 
we  need  not  be  very  nice  about  the  choice  of  our  diet,  or 
our  doctor,  for,  after  all.  the  grand  secret  of  healtb  is  to  be 
happy  at  heart.  The  rules  of  the  New  Testament  are  pro- 
motive  of  bodily  health,  as  well  as  health  of  soul,  and  they 


48  MIND  CAUSES  ORGANIZATION. 

are  really  sufficient  in  most  cases  for  the  direction  of  appe- 
tite in  the  use  of  means,  and  in  them  we  learn  why  we 
should  be  temperate,  active,  holy.— Ib.  p.  140. 

Next  to  the  brain  the  stomach  suffers  from  continued 
mental  distress.  The  appetite  fails;  digestion  is  sus 
pended;  atrophy  succeeds;  and  perhaps  some  nerve  ache 
racks  the  sufferer.  Sometimes  pulmonary  consumption  is 
induced.  The  milk  of  a  nurse  is  often  entirely  suppressed 
by  mental  disquietude.— "POWER  OF  THE  SOUJL  OVEB  THE 
BODY,"  pp.  237,  238. 

The  mind  directs  and  controls  all  our  acts ;  by 
it  alone  our  powers  are  developed,  suppressed,  pre- 
served or  destroyed :  it  is,  therefore,  "the  agent  of 
our  existence,  so  far  as  we  are  concerned." 

Instead  of  organization  being  the  cause  of 
mind,  it  is  the  effect  or  result  of  mind,  as  may  be 
seen  in  all  the  works  of  man  and  of  the  Deity. 
And  though  it  may  be  a  fact  "that  modification 
of  brain  is  accompanied  by  modification  of  con- 
sciousness," as  Mr.  Ward  affirms,  yet  it  is  equally 
true  that  all  the  functions  of  the  body,  including 
the  brain,  are  affected,  (improved  or  injured)  by 
the  use  of  the  mind.  It  may,  therefore,  be  safely 
affirmed  that  science  has  furnished  no  evidence 
that  man  is  wholly  mortal  and  unconscious  be- 
tween death  and  the  resurrection. 

Another  clear  evidence  of  the  immortality  of 
the  soul  is  the  unbounded  intellectual  powers  of 
the  mind. 

Time  and  earth  do  not  and  cannot  measure  the  powers 
of  the  mind  of  man.  He  soars  instinctively  beyond  these, 
lud  the  farther  he  goes  the  greater  his  longing  to  go  still 
larther.  The  more  knowledge  he  acquires,  the  more  he 
desires.  Phrenologists  and  philosophers  of  every  class  ad- 
mit that  no  bound  has  been  found  to  the  development  of 
the  mind.  It  is  so  far  as  we  know  unbounded.  It  must 
therefore  belong  to  eternity  and  not  to  time;  to  heaven 
rather  than  earth;  it  must  be  a  being  of  immortality 
rather  than  of  mortality.  It  must  naturally  be  a  compan- 
ion of  God  rather  than  any  lower  orders  of  beings. 

Believers  in  the  immortality  of  the  soul  need 
not  be  alarmed  concerning  anything  which  may 


NATURE  OF  MA*i .  49 

come  from  the  scientific  domain,  so  long  as  it  con- 
sists chiefly  in  the  unsupported  opinions  and  con- 
clusions of  a  certain  class  of  scientists.  It  is  fair 
to  assume  that,  as  Mr.  Grant  is  a  man  of  marked 
ability  and  long  experience  in  his  work,  he  has 
selected  the  best,  or  from  the  best,  evidences  which 
can  be  produced.  It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that 
that  which  science  has  not  been  able  to  determine 
is  no  evidence  against  its  facts  and  truths.  Nor 
is  it  any  evidence  against  the  teachings  of  the 
Bible,  though  these  teachings  may  go  far  beyoud 
the  revelations  of  modern  science.  With  Mr. 
Grant,  we  believe  that  "true  science"  and  the 
Bible  agree ;  but  in  opposition  to  him,  we  do  not 
believe  that  either  science  or  the  Bible  teaches 
"that  man  is  wholly  mortal."  To  us,  the  view  of 
mortal-soulists  destroys  the  necessary  and  con- 
necting link  between  man  and  God;  between  eartb 
and  heaven;  between  time  and  Eternity. 


CHAPTER  V. 

NATURE  OF  MAN— HE  IS  POSSESSED  OF  A  SPIRIT, 
OR  SOUL,  WHICH  THINKS  AND  ACTS-IT  LIVES  IN 
A  CONSCIOUS  STATE  WHEN  OUT  OF  THE  BODY— 
THE  SOUL  DOES  NOT  DIE  WITH  THE  BODY— AD- 
VENTIST  CLAIMS  EXAMINED  AND  REFUTED. 

There  are  a  few  simple  truths  connected  with 
the  Bible  use  of  the  word  spirit  and  soid  which 
should  be  carefully  considered.  Let  us  note  some 
of  these  as  a  help  in  this  investigation. 

They  are  sometimes,  but  not  always,  used 
synonymously.  They  have  quite  a  wide  applica- 
tion, hence  do  not  always  mean  the  same  thing. 
We  can  not  determine  the  meaning  in  any  given 
text,  simply  and  only  by  an  appeal  to  the  literal  or 
root  meanings  of  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  originals 
from  which  they  come. 


60  "THE  BIBLE  MUST  DETERMINE." 

"There  is  a  spirit  in  man,"  and  there  is  a  spirit 
in  the  beast.  The  Bible  must  determine  the  char- 
acter, capabilities  and  destiny  of  man's  spirit. 
The  word  soul  is  applied  to  man,  also  to  beasts  and 
to  the  creatures  of  the  sea.  (Rev.  6:9;  16:3.) 
Man  is  possessed  of  a  soul  which  his  fellow  man 
can  not  kill ;  hence  it  survives  the  death  of  the 
body.  (Matt.  10 : 28 ;  Luke  12 : 4,  5.)  We  have  no 
quarrel  with  our  opponents  as  to  the  wide  applica- 
tion of  these  terms.  What  we  are  chiefly  con- 
cerned in,  in  this  investigation,  is  the  nature  and 
destiny  of  the  spirit,  (sometimes  called  soul)  which 
God  placed  in  man.  The  vigorous  efforts  of  mor- 
tal-soulists  to  show  other  and  varied  meanings 
of  these  words,  are  of  no  avail  whatever  so  far  as 
proving  their  position  is  concerned.  We  cheer- 
fully acknowledge  whatever  we  can  see  taught  in 
the  Bible,  and  just  as  cheerfully  deny  what  we 
deem  to  be  in  opposition  to  the  teachings  of  that 
book. 

The  spirit  which  God  formed  within  man 
thinks,  wills  and  acts,  as  we  shall  presently  show, 
hence  it  is  the  conscious,  intellectual,  active  part 
of  man.  The  Bible  represents  it— not  simply  as 
an  abstract  quality  of  the  mind,  but  as  an  impor- 
tant part  of  the  man  proper,  and  as  the  mind  it* 
self.  It  is  the  subject  of  regeneration.  ( Jno.  3:6; 
Eph.  3  :16,  17.)  It  returns  to  God  "who  gave  it," 
at  death.  (Eccl.  12:7;  Acts  6 : 59 ;  Luke  23 : 46. ) 

Nephesh,  the  Hebrew  for  soul,  (with  but  two 
exceptions)  occurs  in  the  Old  Testament,  it  is  said, 
752  times.  Psuche,  the  corresponding  Greek  word, 
occurs  in  the  New  Testament  105  times.  Mr. 
Grant  admits  that  "nephesh  js  translated  in  forty- 
four  different  ways  in  the  Old  Testament ;  psuche 
in  six  different  ways  in  the  New  Testament,  mak- 
ing fifty  in  all,"  which,  however,  he  claims  "may 
be  reduced  to  three."  (See  "GRANT  AND  LONG 
DEBATE,"  p.  6.) 


BIBLE  USE  OF  SOUL.  51 

Mr.  Grant  claims,  in  the  debate  referred  to, 
that  the  meaning  and  Bible  use  of  the  originals 
for  soul  will  not  admit  of  a  belief  in  its  immortal- 
ity. He  quotes  a  long  list  of  authorities  in  sup- 
port of  his  view ;  but  what  we  have  said  of  nil 
scientific  authorities  is  largely  true  of  these.  A 
careful  examination  of  their  statements  will  show 
that  some  of  them,  at  least,  had  reference  only  to 
the  signification  of  the  words ;  but  it  is  hardly 
probable  that  they,  or  even  Mr.  Grant,  would  be 
so  rash  as  to  deny  that  soul  and  spirit  may  be  prop- 
erly applied  to  that  which  is  immortal.  Soul  is 
applied  to  God,  and,  as  we  have  seen,  to  that  part 
of  man  which  man  cannot  kill.  Spirit  is  applied 
to  God  and  to  angels.  If,  therefore,  "there  is  an 
immortal  entity  in  man,  there  is  nothing  in  the 
signification  of  soul,  spirit,  or  the  originals  from 
which  they  come,  forbidding  their  application  to 
this  conscious  entity. 

Your  new-moons  and  your  appointed  feasts  my  soul 
hateth;  they  are  a  trouble  unto  me;  I  am  weary  to  bear 
them.— Is  a.  1:14. 

Behold  my  servant,  whom  I  uphold;  mine  elect,  it* 
whom  my  soul  delighteth;  I  have  put  my  spirit  upon  him; 
he  shall  bring  forth  judgment  to  the  Gentiles.— Isa.  42:1. 

Be  thou  instructed,  O  Jerusalem,  lest  my  soul  depart 
from  thee;  lest  I  make  thee  desolate,  a  land  not  inhabited. 
— Jer.  6:8. 

Nephesh  is  the  original  for  the  word  soul  as 
found  in  the  above  passages ;  so  we  may  fairly 
say  that,  if  the  use  and  application  of  a  word  have 
anything  to  do  with  its  meaning,  nephesh,  or  soul, 
denotes  immortality  as  well  as  mortality,  for  it  is 
applied  to  God,  who  is  wholly  immortal.  If  this 
position  is  not  correct,  then  we  are  forced  to  the 
conclusion  that  neither  the  mortal  nor  immortal- 
soulist  gains  anything  by  an  appeal  to  the  literal 
or  primary  signification  of  the  words. 

Spirit,  with  two  exceptions,  as  found  in  the 
Old  Testament,  comes  from  the  Hebrew  ruach. 


52  BIBLE  USE  OF  SPIRIT. 

In  the  New  Testament,  with  two  exceptions,  from 
the  Greek  pneuma;  and  spirit,  like  soul,  is  applied 
to  God. 

God  is  a  Spirit:  and  they  that  worship  him,  must  wo*~ 
ship  him  in  spirit  and  in  truth.— Jno.  4:24. 

Now  the  Lord  is  that  Spirit:  and  where  the  Spirit  of 
the  Lord  is,  there  is  liberty.— 2  Cor.  3:17. 

On  p.  26  of  the  "GRANT  AND  LONG  DEBATE,'' 
the  former  gives  himself  away  by  making  an  im- 
portant admission.  The  statement  is  carefully 
and  guardedly  made,  it  is  true,  but  it  is,  neverthe- 
less, an  eye  opener.  After  citing  a  number  of 
authorities  on  nephesh  and  ^suche,  he  says  : 

Yet  all  these  lexicographers  give  the  theological  defini- 
tion. They  must  give  that,  but  it  never  comes  first,  but 
amongst  the  last. 

From  this  we  infer  that  Mr.  Grant  has  been 
furnishing  us  with  partial  definitions  from  the 
authorities  quoted — all  the  way  through— just 
that  part  which  seemed  to  suit  his  side  of  the 
question. 

But  why  does  he  ignore  the  theological  defini- 
tion? Hear  him.  "It  never  comes  first,  but 
amongst  the  last."  Some  years  ago  a  letter  was 
addressed  to  a  lexicographer  of  acknowledged  abil- 
ity, asking  if  any  preference  should  be  given  to 
the  primary  definition  of  a  word.  The  reply  was 
simply  this :  "One  definition  had  to  be  given 
first."  When  a  word  is  first  used  its  meaning  and 
application  are,  as  a  rule,  very  limited ;  but  time 
enlarges  the  domain  for  its  use,  and  hence  we 
have  secondary  definitions. 

But  does  not  Mr.  Grant's  position  prove  too 
much?  To  illustrate,  let  us  look  at  the  word 
elder  as  we  find  it  in  the  New  Testament.  Doubt- 
less we  shall  agree  that  he  is  a  minister  of  Jesus 
Christ  and  should  be  possessed  of  godly  wisdom 
and  spirituality.  That  he  is  properly  authorized 
to  minister  in  spiritual  things.  The  Greek  foi 


MISLEADING  DEFINITIONS.  63 

Elder  is  presbuteros,  and  the  literal  or  primary 
definition  given  by  Dr.  Young,  whom  Mr.  Grant 
also  quotes,  is  an  "aged  person."  So  we  must  now 
believe,  in  harmony  with  Mr.  Grant's  reasoning 
concerning  the  soul,  that  there  is  no  more  knowl- 
edge of  God ;  no  more  of  the  spirit  of  God ;  no 
more  authority  to  minister  in  divine  things,  with 
the  Elders  of  Christ's  church,  and  that  there  nev- 
er has  been,  than  there  is  with  any  other  class  of 
"aged  persons!"  The  Greek  term  denotes  "an 
aged  person,"  hence  it  applies  to  all  aged  persons 
alike,  just  as  the  word  soul  applies  to  man  and 
beast  alike,  you  know.  "Man  hath  no  preemi- 
nence above  the  beast,"  and  the  minister  of  the 
church,  called  an  Elder,  hath  no  preeminence 
over  any  other  ''aged  person  1" 

We  might  call  attention  to  the  literal  and 
primary  definitions  of  the  Greek  for  church,  biah* 
op,  and  a  host  of  other  words  with  similar  results. 
The  argument  is  a  worthless  one,  which  will  not 
bear  the  light  of  investigation,  although  made  the 
leading  means  of  support  for  the  dogma  of  mortal- 
soulism.  -Mr.  Grant  says :  "There  are  nine  words 
of  special  importance,  involved  in  these  subjects, 
to  be  examined  carefully."  Nephesh,  psuche,  ruach, 
pneuma,  sheol  and  h&des,  are  the  leading  ones  of  the 
nine.  By  treating  these  important  words  in  the 
manner  referred  to  above,  Mr.  Grant  seems  to 
think  that  he  is  proving  that  "man  is  wholly  mor- 
tal and  unconscious  between  death  and  the  resur- 
rection." 

Throw  away  the  theological  definitions  of  all 
gospel  terms  found  in  the  New  Testament,  and  we 
at  once  deprive  the  gospel  of  all,  or  nearly  all,  its 
spirituality  ;  and  with  one  blow  reduce  God's  rev- 
elation of  the  gospel  (which  is  wholly  spiritual)  to 
a  kind  of  ubald  literalism"  which  renders  it  both 
useless  and  undesirable. 


54         DEFINITIONS  OF  tfSUCHE  AND  NEPHESH. 

Liddell  and  Scott  define  psuche,  the  Greek  for 
soul,  as  follows : 

1.  Breath,  life,  spirit.  2.  The  soul  or  immortal  part  of 
man  as  opposed  to  the  body  or  perishable  part. 

The  second  part  of  the  definition,  Mr.  Grant 
leaves  out. 

Nephesh,  according  to  Fuerst,  "means  t^e 
soul  or  spirit ;  in  other  cases,  an  individual,  a  per- 
son, man." 

Gesenius  defines  it  to  mean,  "spirit,  soul, 
mind ;  also  a  man,  person." 

The  last  two  definitions  are  taken  from  Hal- 
ey's "DISCREPANCIES  OF  THE  BIBLE,"  p.  187. 

Mr.  Grant  also  furnishes  a  definition  otnephesh 
from  Gesenius,  but  it  is  entirely  different  from 
the  one  furnished  by  Mr.  Haley.  The  cause  of 
this  discrepancy  we  do  not  know. 

Dr.  Buck:  That  vital,  immaterial,  active  substance  or 
principle  in  man,  whereby  he  perceives,  remembers,  rea- 
sons and  wills. 

"JOHN  BROWN'S  DICTIONARY  OF  THE  BIBLE:"  Soul 
signifies:  (1)  That  spiritual,  reasonable,  and  immortal  sub- 
stance in  men,  which  distinguishes  them  from  the  beasts, 
and  is  the  source  of  our  thoughts  and  reasonings.  (2)  A 
whole  human  person,  of  which  the  soul  is  the  principal 
part.  (3)  Human  life,  which  is  begun  by  the  infusion  of  the 
soul,  and  ceases  with  the  departure  of  it.  (4)  Affection,  de- 
sire. (5)  Appetite,  stomach.  (6)  The  Jews  called  dead  bod- 
ies souls,  because  they  were  once  their  residence.  The 
officers,  especially  the  General,  are  the  soul  of  an  army, 
and  the  common  soldiers  are  the  body  of  it. 

Liddell  and  Scott,  in  their  "GREEK LEXICON," 
define  pneumn,  the  Greek  for  spirit,  as  follows : 

Wind,  air,  the  air  we  breathe,  "breath  of  life,"  spirit, 
that  is  feeling.  The  spirit,  a  living  being,  a  spirit,  spirit- 
ual being.  . 

Mr.  Grant,  in  "THE  SPIRIT  IN  MAN,"  p. 
21,  gives  the  first  part  of  this  definition, 
to  the  end  of  the  word  feeling,  but  leaves 
out  all  the  remainder,  thus  making  Liddell 
and  Scott's  definition  harmonize  with  his  own. 

Having  shown,  now,  that  according  to  the  Bi- 
ble, and  in  harmony  with  the  definition  given  bj 


THE  "BREATH  OF  LIFE."  55 

competent  authors,  we  may  properly  apply  the 
words  soul  and  spirit  to  that  which  is  immortal, 
we  are  prepared  for  a  more  close  investigation  of 
the  spirit  which  God  placed  within  man.  This 
spirit  is  sometimes  called  soul. 

Mortal-soulists  claim  that  "the  spirit  in  man" 
is  the  "breath  of  life"  which  God  breathed  into 
the  nostrils  of  Adam ;  that  this,  and  this  only,  is 
what  returns  to  God  at  death  ;  that  this  "breath 
of  life"  is  common  to  man  and  all  other  animals  ; 
and  as  there  is  no  immortal  spirit  or  soul  in  the 
beast,  therefore  there  is  none  in  man.  This 
"breath  of  life"  they  undertake  to  define,  but  do 
not  agree  as  to  what  it  is.  They  should  be  the 
last,  though  they  are  among  the  first,  to  charge 
conflicting  views  against  us  as  an  evidence  of  the 
weakness  of  our  position.  (When  we  say  us  and 
owr,  in  this  connection,  reference  is  had,  of  course, 
to  all  who  believe  in  the  immortality  of  the  soul.) 
Mr.  Grant,  in  "THE  SPIRIT  IN  MAN,"  pp.  2,  5,  6, 
13,  27,  claims  that  it  is  simply  the  air  we  breathe 
—common  atmosphere.  But  perhaps  we  had  bet- 
ter give  his  own  words : 

The  same  word  is  used  to  denote  the  atmosphere  we 
breathe,  and  is  then  properly  denominated  the  "breath  of 
life,"  without  which  all  living  beings  upon  this  planet 
would  die. 

We  all  breathe  from  the  same  airy  ocean,  and  all  die 
when  there  is  not  sufficient  physical  strength  to  breathe 
any  longer. 

It  is  perfectly  evident  that  "ruach,"  In  these  last  ex- 
amples, does  not  refer  to  "a  state  of  feeling;"  the  Holy 
Spirit,  or  an  organized  conscious  being;  but  the. atmos- 
phere surrounding  the  earth,  which  is  denominated  the 
"breath  of  life." 

The  "ruach,"  spirit  or  breath  in  man,  Is  not  a  part  of 
God,  as  many  claim,  but  a  substance  formed  by  our  Crea- 
tor, to  be  received  within  ourselves,  through  the  nostrils, 
for  the  purpose  of  purifying  the  blood  while  passing 
through  the  lungs  and  then  returning  through  our  nostrils^ 
laden  with  impurities,  to  be  exchanged  for  another  portion 
of  "ruach,"  or  air.  The  Lord  formed  this  before  he  made 


56  W ATKINS  AND  GRANT. 

man,  but  man  lives  no  longer  than  this  "breath  of  life"  is 
"within  him." 

The  whole  Bible  seems  to  harmonize  with  this  position 
that  "ruach"  and  "pneuma"  are  used  to  denote  not  only 
beings,  state  of  feeling,  and  an  influence,  but  the  atmos- 
phere surrounding  this  earth,  which  is  called  the  "breath 
of  life,"  without  which  all  living  creatures  would  die  at 
once  and  return  to  dust;  and  that  nothing  else  leaves  us 
at  death. 

We  have  been  particular  to  give  Mr.  Grant  in 
full,  on  this  point,  because  in  a  late  discussion 
with  the  writer,  Elder  F.  C.  Watkins  of  the  C.  A. 
Church,  and  editor  of  the  Christian  Armory,  pub- 
licly denied  his  stated  position.  This  was  done 
for  Mr.  Grant,  but  it  is  not  probable  that  Mr. 
Grant  would  do  as  much  for  himself. 

From  the  above  we  can  clearly  understand  Mr. 
Grant's  views  of  the  spirit  in  man ;  and  let  it  be 
understood,  that  he  speaks  as  a  leading  represent- 
ative of  the  C.  A.  Church.  The  spirit  in  man  is 
only  common  atmosphere  !  It  was  ''formed"  be- 
fore God  made  man  ;  but  Zechariah  said  the  Lord 
"formeth  the  spirit  of  man  within  him."  (Zech. 
12 : 1.)  This  common  air,  and  nothing  else,  accord- 
ing to  Mr.  Grant,  is  what  returns  to  "God  who 
gave  it,"  at  death.  In  what  particular  sense  it 
returns  to  God  any  more  than  the  elements  of 
which  the  body  is  composed,  Mr.  Grant  does  not 
say.  He  has  said,  however,  that  the  body  is  com- 
posed of  certain  elements,  some  of  which  are  "car- 
bon, oxygen,  hydrogen,  nitrogen." 

In  the  light  of  the  above  position,  will  Mr. 
Grant  be  so  kind  as  to  tell  us  why  this  atmosphere 
which  God  placed  in  man  is  called  "a  spirit,"  in  the 
singular,  and  "spirit*"  in  the  plural.  Suppose  we 
try  Job  32 : 8,  and  insert  atmosphere  instead  of 
spirit.  "But  there  is  a  atmosphere  in  man,"  or  "a 
air  in  man."  What  grammar  !  If  air  and  spirit 
are  identical,  then  the  use  of  the  indefinite  article 
"a"  is  altogether  out  of  place  when  applied  to 


GRANT'S  POSITION  INDEFENSIBLE.  67 

spirit.  When  the  spirit  of  one  person  is  referred 
to  it  is  frequently  called  "a  spirit ;"  When  refer- 
ence is  had  to  more  than  one,  "spirits."  Will  Mr. 
Grant  tell  us  how  to  pluralize  atmosphere,  "the 
atmosphere  which  surrounds  our  globe  ?"  Let  us 
try  it  by  inserting  atmospheres  or  airs  where  we 
find  spirits.  Numbers  16:22.  "And  they  fell 
upon  their  faces  and  said,  O  God,  the  God  of  the 
atmospheres  of  all  flesh,"  etc.  Or  "the  God  of  the 
airs  of  all  flesh." 

The  plain  truth  is  that  Mr.  Grant's  posi- 
tion is  not  defensible.  If  spirits  here  mean 
atmospheres  (and  Mr.  Grant  has  taken 
this  position  on  both  of  the  passages  re- 
ferred to)  then  the  plural  form  of  spirit  is  wrong. 
It  should  read  "the  God  of  the  spirit,"  not  "spir- 
its, of  all  flesh."  And  the  other  passage,  "There 
is  spirit,"  not  "a  spirit,  in  man." 

We  would  like  to  know,  too.  if  it  was  a  portion 
of  this  atmosphere  "laden  with  impurities,"  as 
Mr.  Grant  puts  it,  that  Jesus  and  Stephen  spec- 
ially committed  into  the  hands  of  God  when  they 
died?  (Luke  23:46;  Acts  7:59)  The  forms  of 
these  two  prayers  are,  "Father,  into  thy  hands  I 
commend  my  spirit."— Jesus.  "Lord  Jesus, 
receive  my  spirit."— Stephen. 

Aaron  Ellis,  in  "Burr/re  vs.  TRADITION,* 
gives  us  the  benefit  of  his  wisdom  An  defining  "the 
breath  of  life,"  or  spirit. 

This  principle  of  life,  or  spirit,  is  not  the  air,  nor  the 
breath,  but  is  contained  in  the  air,  and  breath. 

We  say,  therefore,  strictly  speaking,  that  this  Is  not  the 
air,  but  is  contained  in  the  air.— p.  86. 

On  page  87,  after  speaking  of  the  destruction 
which  occurred  at  the  flood,  Mr.  Ellis  says: 

Every  living  thing  died,  and  the  spirit  was  expired, 
breathed  out  into  the  universal  pabulum  of  all  lives,  which 
is  in  the  hands  of  God. 


<58  GRANT  AND  ELLIS. 

Th  spirit  of  man,  then,  is  not  a  living  entity;  and  al- 
though no  creature  can  live  without  it,  it  is  not  alive  itself. 
It  is  not  organized  for  the  development  of  life,  and  there- 
fore is  not  mortal  nor  immortal,  and  the  expression, 
"deatHless  spirit,"  as  applied  to  man,  is  a  compound  of 
Paganism,  tradition  and  nonsense. 

Mr.  Ellis  plainly  tells  us  what  this  spirit  is  not, 
but  gives  a  very  faint  or  vague  idea  of  what  it  is. 
He  says  it  is  contained  "in  the  air,"  but  "strictly 
speaking,"  "is  not  the  air."  What  is  this  which 
is  "in  the  air,"  but  "is  not  the  air  ?"  Is  it  a  compo- 
nent part  of  the  air  ?  Or  is  it  something  else 
which,  in  some  unexplainable  way,  has  gotten  into 
the  air  ? 

We  are  told  on  p.  86,  that  "this  breath  con- 
tains the  spirit,  the  sustaining  principle  of  all 
lives  ;"  and  at  the  bottom  of  same  page,  and  on 
p.  87.  that  this  spirit,  "though  the  cause  of  life,  is 
not  a  living  thing."  Is  it  dead  ?  We  suppose  not. 
As  it  is  neither  "mortal  nor  immortal,"  it  is  prob- 
ably neither  dead  nor  alive!  And  yet,  this  is 
what  causes  life,  and  without  which,  "no  creature 
can  live !" 

As  this  spirit  is  "breathed  out  into  the  uni- 
versal pabulum  of  all  lives,"  at  death,  we  are  able 
now  to  understand  how  it  is  that  the  "spirit  re- 
turns to  God  who  gave  it,"  at  that  time;  though 
we  are  still  sorely  puzzled  to  know  why  Jesus  and 
Stephen  exercised  so  much  faith  and  solicitude 
concerning  their  spirits.  Why  should  they  do  so ; 
inasmuch  as  the  spirits  of  all,  wicked  as  well  as 
righteous,  with  the  spirits  of  all  beasts,  go  to  the 
same  place,  the  "universal  pabulum  of  all  lives !" 

But  we  will  leave  Messrs.  Grant  and  Ellis,  for 
the  present,  at  least,  and  inquire  of  William  Shel- 
don, another  leading  minister  of  the  C.  A.  Church, 
for  light  on  this  subject. 

On  pp.  58,  59  of  "ADVENTISM,"  Revised  Edi- 
tion of  1869. 


WM.  SHELDON'S  VIEWS.  59 

Man  possesses  the  "spirit  of  life."  or  "breath  of  life,'*— 
not  the  breath  of  air,  but  the  "breath  of  LIFE;"  an  element 
that  produces  life  alike  in  man  and  beast,  and  is  mani- 
fested long  prior  to  birth  or  before  inhaling  the  breath  of 
air— not  an  entity,  but  an  element.  This  spirit  will  return 
to  God  who  gave  it;  and  "the  body  without  [this]  spirit  is 
dead:"  with  it  we  live,  without  it  we  die.  The  spirit  that 
returns  to  God,  is  simply  the  one  that  he  "gave:"  and  the 
record  says  that  was  "the  breath  of  life."  —  Gen.  2:7. 
We  inhale  and  exhale  the  breath  of  air  several  hundred 
times  each  hour;  but  never  does  the  "breath  of  life,"  or 
spirit  of  life,  leave  us  till  death;  and  after  death  a  large 
amount  of  air  still  remains  in  the  lungs;  but  life  is  extinct 
when  the  "spirit  of  life"  leaves— an  element  of  life,  perhaps 
akin  to  electricity,  different  from  mere  air,  though  it  may 
be  one  of  its  ingredients. 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  positions  of  Ellis  and 
Sheldon  are  largely  subject  to  the  same  criticisms 
made  on  the  position  of  Grant.  The  spirit  is  "an 
element,  not  an  entity,"  therefore  it  should  never 
be  called  "a  spirit,"  but  simply  spirit;  they  should 
never  be  called  "spirits,"  but  spirit,  as  one  ele- 
ment can  have  no  plural  form.  It  is  not  claimed 
by  these  men  that  one  man  has  one  kind  of  a  spir- 
it and  another  man  another  kind ;  but  rather, 
that  all  have  one  spirit,  "an  element  not  an  ent- 
ity," and  that  the  same  spirit  is  possessed  by  the 
beast.  Why  then  is  it  said  that  there  is  "a  spirit 
in  man  ?"  And  why  do  we  read  that  the  Lord 
is  "the  God  of  the  spirits  of  all  flesh  ?"  If  the  view 
of  immortal-soulists  is  correct,  one  person  has  a 
spirit,  which  is  an  entity.  More  than  one  or  all 
together,  have  spirits.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
view  of  mortal-soulists  is  correct,  one  person  has 
spirit,  "an  element ;"  more  than  one,  or  all  men, 
with  the  beasts,  have  spirit,  and  only  spirit. 

It  is  quite  evident,  we  think,  that  when  these 
men  undertake  to  define  the  spirit  which  God 
placed  in  man,  in  harmony  with  their  belief,  they 
are  all  at  sea.  Surely  they  have  furnished  us  no 
pro©f  that  the  spirit  is  "common  air,"  something 


60  GRANT  ON  SPIRIT. 

"akin  to  electricity,"  or  some  undeflnable  thing 
"contained  in  the  air."  And  yet  proof  is  just  what 
they  all  demand  of  us  I 

Mr.  Grant  says  "the  word  spirit  is  used  in  four 
senses  in  the  Bible." 

1.  To  represent  a  being.    "God  is  a  Spirit."    Angels  are 
"ministering  spirits;"    hence  one   is  properly   called   '"a 
spirit."      Demons,  or  fallen  spirits,  are  called  "unclean 
spirits." 

2.  The  word  spirit  is  used  to  denote  an  influence  pro- 
ceeding from  a  being.    Hence  we  read  of  the  Comforter,  or 
Holy  Spirit,  that  "it  proceedeth  from  the  Father."     In 
mesmeric  operations  there  is  a  spirit  proceeding  from  the 
operator  to  his  subject,  by  means  of  which  he  controls  him. 
All  men  and  animals  exert  this  influence,  more  or  less. 

3.  Spirit  is  used  to  represent  a  state  of  mind:— as,  a 
"haughty  spirit,"  "proud  in  spirit,"  etc. 

4.  The  same  word  is  used  to  denote  the  atmosphere  we 
breathe,  and  is  then  properly  denominated  "the  breath  of 
life,"  without  which  all  living  animals  on  this  planet  would 
die.— "SPIRIT  IN  MAN,"  pp.  1, 2. 

We  offer  no  objections  to  the  above,  except  to 
No.  3,  which  is  certainly  misleading.  (No.  4  was 
quoted  before.)  "Spirit  is  used  to  represent  a 
state  of  mind,"  etc.  Under  this  head  Mr.  Grant 
marshals  all  those  passages  which  ascribe  to  the 
spirit  the  passions  and  qualities  of  the  mind.  In 
this  way  he  seeks  to  take  from  us  a  large  and  val- 
uable portion  of  our  proof;  but  it  will  not  work  as 
may  easily  be  seen. 

The  condition  of  mind  or  feeling  to  which  he 
repeatedly  refers  in  his  examination  of  the  word 
spirit,  is  always  described  by  another  word,  an  ad- 
jective, while  fpirft  is  a  noun.  These  adjectives, 
such  as  "humble,"  "contrite,"  "proud,"  "sorrow- 
ful," etc.,  denote  the  "state  of  mind  ;"  while  the 
word  spirit,  when  they  are  used  to  modify  it,  de- 
notes the  mmd  itself.  Let  us  simplify  and  illus- 
trate by  using  the  term  man  instead  of  spirit.  We 
say  he  is  a  humble  man ;  a  proud  man  ;  a  sorrowful 
man,  etc.  Now  the  word  man  represents  the 


BREATH  OF  LIFE.  61 

whole  person,  while  the  adjectives  simply  denote 
characteristics.  So  the  word  spirit  denotes  the 
"inner  man;"  while  the  words  humble,  proud,  sor- 
rowful, etc.,  modify  by  denoting  characteristics  of 
the  spirit. 

We  are  prepared  to  concede  that  the  breath 
of  life  is  common  to  man  and  be^st,  and  might 
even  go  farther  than  this ;  but  we  understand  the 
Bible  to  teach  that  God  gave  much  more  than  this 
to  man. 

The  burden  of  the  word  of  the  Lord  for  Israel,  saith 
the  Lord,  which  stretcheth  forth  the  heavens,  and  lay- 
eth  the  foundation  of  the  earth,  and  formeth  the  spirit 
of  man  within  him.— Zech.  12:1. 

The  prophet  is  describing  the  work  of  crea- 
tion ;  and  the  crowning  part  of  it  is  the  formation 
of  the  spirit  withm  man  just  as  the  body  was  made 
from  already  existing  material,  so,  evidently,  the 
spirit,  in  some  form  or  condition  existed  before. 
And  as  the  material  composing  the  body  is  dead 
"without  the  spirit,"  both  before  and  after  its 
formation,  so,  we  infer,  the  spirit  was  life  both 
before  and  after  it  was  formed  within  man.  The 
passage  describes  a  part  of  the  progressive  work  of 
the  Creator ;  and  what  is  back  of  it,  we  may  not 
know  but  in  a  limited  degree.  The  word  "formed," 
found  in  Genesis  2:7,  and  "formeth,"  found  in  the 
text  quoted  above,  come  from  the  same  Hebrew 
word,  yatsar,  the  literal  meaning  of  which  is, 
according  to  Dr.  Young,  "To  form,  fashion,  frame, 
constitute."  There  is  no  proof,  so  far  as  we  know, 
that  this  spirit  which  God  formed  within  man  is 
"the  breath  of  life"  common  to  man  and  beast. 
That  it  may  have  been  given  at  the  same  time 
that  God  breathed  into  man  "the  breath  of  life," 
is,  pehaps,  probable;  but  that  at  that  time,  or 
some  other  time,  God  gave  to  man  something  more 
than  the  breath  which  is  applied  to  the  brutes, 
we  are  compelled  to  believe.  Why  is  it  called 


62  THE  SRIRIT  IN  MAN. 

"The  spirit  of  man  ?  "  Does  not  the  phrase  imply 
that  it  belongs  to  man  and  not  to  the  beasts  ? 
From  Job  34 : 14,  we  learn  that  man  has  both  spirit 
and  breath : 

If  he  set  his  heart  upon  man,  if  he  gather  unto  himself 
his  spirit  and  his  breath. 

"The  spirit  of  man"  is  intellectual.  It  knows, 
thinks,  wills  and  acts. 

But  there  is  a  spirit  in  man:  and  the  inspiration  of  the 
Almighty  giveth  them  understanding.— Job  32:8. 

The  manner  in  which  Mr.  Grant  disposes  of 
this  passage,  illustrates  how  easily  some  men  can 
set  aside  that  which  stands  in  their  way.  "THE 
SPIRIT  IN  MAN,"  p.  12: 

Observe,  he  does  not  say  this  spirit  is  man,  but  is  in 
man;  and  without  this,  we  have  no  life,  no  understanding. 
This  inspiration  sets  the  human  machinery  in  motion,  and 
thought  is  evolved  by  the  action  of  the  brain;  "till  his 
(ruach)  breath  goeth  forth,  ...  In  that  very  day  his 
thoughts  perish."— Ps.  146:4. 

It  will  be  seen  that  Mr.  Grant  confines  him- 
self to  the  most  literal  meaning  of  the  word  inspi- 
ration ;  but  the  context  plainly  shows  that  the 
knowledge  of  God,  which  is  communicated  to  us 
through  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  what 
was  meant  by  Elihu.  The  words  of  Job  and  his 
three  friends  were  not  satisfactory  to  this  young 
man.  Job  was  "righteous  in  his  own  eyes,"  and 
his  three  friends  were  not  able  to  answer  him. 
Elihu  waited  till  they  were  through  because  they 
were  older  than  he.  Now  he  apologizes  for  speak- 
ing, and  for  his  previous  silence,  in  the  following 
manner : 

And  Klihu  the  son  of  Barachel  the  Buzite  answered 
and  said,  I  am  young,  and  ye  are  very  old ;  wherefore  I  was 
afraid,  and  durst  not  show  you  mine  opinion.  I  said,  Days 
should  speak,  and  multitude  of  years  should  teach  wisdom. 
But  there  is  a  spirit  in  man;  and  the  inspiration  of  the  Al- 
mighty giveth  them  understanding.  Great  men  are  not 
always  wise;  neither  do  the  aged  understand  judgment. 
Therefore  I  said.  Hearken  to  me;  I  will  also  show  mine 
opinion.— Job  32:6-10. 


INSPIRATION  OF  THE  ALMIGHTY.  63 

The  above  is  too  plain  to  be  misunderstood. 
Elihu  did  not  refer  to  the  physical  act  of  inhaling 
air  into  the  lungs  by  breathing,  but  to  the  impart- 
ing of  intelligence  and  wisdom  by  "the  Almighty." 
Notice,  it  is  the  "inspiration  of  the  Almighty"  and 
not  inspiration  of  man. 

Mr.  Grant's  own  statement  condemns  his  posi- 
tion. He  says  "this  inspiration  sets  the  human 
machinery  in  motion,  and  thought  is  evolved  by 
the  action  of  the  brain."  This  inspiration,  then, 
is  not  the  source  or  cause  of  man's  intelligence, 
but  that  source  is  the  brain.  Intelligence,  they 
tell  us,  is  the  result  of  organization ;  and  it  is 
man's  superior  organization  that  gives  to  him 
more  intelligence  than  what  is  possessed  by  the 
brute.  But  the  "understanding"  of  which  Elihu 
speaks  is  imparted,  not  from  the  brain,  nor  from 
the  air  breathed  into  the  lungs,  but  from  the 
"inspiration  of  the  Almighty."  It  is,  however, 
manifested  through  the  brain,  the  organ  of  the 
mind,  and  is  spoken  by  the  mouth,  the  organ  of 
speech. 

Mr.  Grant's  expressed  views  on  this  scripture, 
furnish  us  with  a  striking  illustration  of  the  dan- 
ger and  tendency  of  extreme  materialism.  It  is 
no  better  than  extreme  immaterialism.  For  aught 
we  know,  Job  and  his  three  friends  could  breathe 
as  well  as  Elihu.  They  may  have  had  just  as  much 
brain  power ;  but  Elihu  believed  he  had  received 
help  directly  from  God,  hence  his  anxiety  to 
speak.  Afterwards,  when  God  rebuked  Job  for 
his  folly,  and  his  three  friends  for  their  folly  and 
wickedness,  not  one  word  is  said  against  Elihu. 

The  leading  thought  of  the  text  seems  to  be 
this :  "There  is  a  spirit  in  man"  which  is  able  to 
receive  and  appropriate  the  "inspiration  of  the 
Almighty,"  as  revealed  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  Elihu 
believed  he  had  claim  upon  God  for  this  inspira- 


64  INSPIRATION  OF  GOD. 

tion,  and  had  received  a  portion,  and  therefore, 
was  willing  and  anxious  to  speak,  even  in  the  pres- 
ence of  the  "great"  and  "aged."  The  point  to 
which  we  call  special  attention  is  this :  Man  is 
able  to  receive  and  appropriate  the  knowledge  of 
God,  because  of  the  capabilities  of  the  spirit  with- 
in him.  Who  placed  that  spirit  in  man?  God. 
Who  reveals  this  Divine  knowledge  to  man  by  the 
Spirit?  God. 

For  what  man  knoweth  the  things  of  a  man,  save  the 
spirit  of  man  which  is  in  him?  even  so  the  things  of  God 
knoweth  no  man,  but  the  spirit  of  God.— 1  Cor.  2:11. 

Man  cannot  comprehend  the  things  of  God 
without  the  help  of  God's  Spirit ;  but  what  Paul 
denominates  the  "things  of  a  man,"  are  compre- 
hended by  man's  spirit  alone.  If  it  be  said  this 
simply  refers  to  a  state  of  mind,  in  man,  we 
answer,  it  refers  to  that  which  knows  and  under- 
stands :  hence  the  intellectual,  conscious  part  of 
man.  God  formed  the  spirit  within  man.  It 
is  this  spirit  that  knows  "the  things  of  a 
man;"  it  is  this  spirit  that  becomes  inspired  by 
the  Spirit  of  God  to  know  the  "things  of  God." 

The  Spirit  itself  beareth  witness  with  our  spirit,  that 
we  are  the  children  of  God.— Romans  8:16. 

The  fact  that  God's  Spirit  which  comforts, 
guides  "into  all  truth,"  teaches  us  all  things; 
brings  all  things  to  our  remembrance,  shows  us 
things  to  come,  takes  of  the  things  of  the  Father 
and  shows  them  unto  us,  as  stated  in  John,  four- 
teenth fifteenth  and  sixteenth  chapters,  com- 
municates directly  with  "the  spirit  in  man,"  is 
clear  evidence  that  the  spirit  is  an  intelligent  ent- 
ity. 

Volition,  or  the  will  power,  is  resident  in  the 
spirit,  as  may  be  seen  from  the  following  pass- 
ages: 

And  they  came  every  one  whose  heart  stirred  him  up, 
and  every  one  whom  his  spirit  made  willing,  and  they 


THE  FLESH  AND  SPIRIT.  65 

brought  the  Lord's  offering  to  the  work  of  the  tabernacle 
of  the  congregation,  and  for  all  his  service,  and  for  the 
holy  garments.  Ex.  35:21. 

Watch  and  pray,  that  ye  enter  not  Into  temptation:  the 
spirit  indeed  is  willing,  but  the  flesh  is  weak.— Matt.  26:41. 

What  was  it  that  made  each  individual  who 
"brought  the  Lord's  offering  to  the  work  of  the 
tabernacle  of  the  congregation,"  willing  to  do  this 
work?  His  heart,  or  spirit.  "The  spirit  indeed  is 
willing,"  said  Jesus  to  his  disciples,  "but  the  flesh 
is  weak."  Thus  he  contrasts  the  flesh  with  the 
spirit,  showing  that  each  is  a  component  part  of 
man ;  but  the  will  he  makes  resident  with  the 
spirit. 

It  will  be  conceded  that  we  are  required  to 
serve  God  with  our  whole  being;  and  that  being, 
according  to  Paul,  is  composed  of  body  and  spirit. 

Having  therefore  these  promises,  dearly  beloved,  let 
us  cleanse  ourselves  from  all  filthiness  of  the  flesh  and 
spirit,  perfecting  holiness  in  the  fear  of  God.— 2  Cor.  7:1. 

There  is  difference  also  between  a  wife  and  a  virgin. 
The  unmarried  woman  careth  for  the  things  of  the  Lord, 
that  she  may  be  holy,  both  in  body  and  in  spirit:  but  she 
that  is  married,  careth  for  the  things  of  the  world,  how  she 
may  please  her  husband.— 1  Cor.  7:34. 

For  ye  are  bought  with  a  price:  therefore  glorify  God 
in  your  body,  and  in  your  spirit,  which  are  God's.— 1  Cor. 
6:20. 

Paul  served  God  with  his  spirit. 

For  God  is  my  witness,  whom  I  serve  with  my  spirit  In 
the  gospel  of  his  Son,  that  without  ceasing  I  make  mention 
of  you  always  in  my  prayers.— Romans  1:9. 

Did  Paul  mean  that  he  served  God  with  his 
breath,  or  with  his  mind?  Evidently  the  latter, 
which  shows  that  spirit  and  mind  are  sometimes 
used  interchangeably;  and  that  they  are  some- 
times so  used  is  virtually  conceded  by  Adventist 
authors. 

From  a  host  of  passages  contained  in  the  Old 
and  New  Testament  Scriptures,  we  learn  that  the 
passions  and  qualities  of  the  human  mind  are 
ascribed  to  the  "spirit  in  man." 


66  SOUL  AND  SPIRIT  COMPARED. 

His  spirit  was  troubled.— Gen.  41:8. 
Anguish  of  spirit,— Ex.  6:9. 
Hardened  his  spirit.— Deu.  2:30. 
A  woman  of  a  sorrowful  spirit.— 1  Samuel  1 :15. 
Why  is  thy  spirit  so  sad  ?— 1  Kings  21:5. 
The  Lord  stirred  up  the  spirit  of  Cyrus.— Ezra  t  :1. 
Will  speak  in  the  anguish  of  my  spirit.— Job  7:11. 
Blessed  is  the  man  in  whose  spirit  there  is  no  guile.— 
Psalms  32: 2. 

Saveth  such  as  be  of  a  contrite  spirit.— Psalms  34:18. 
My  spirit  made  diligent  search.— Psalms  77:6. 
Have  provoked  his  spirit.— Psalms  106:33. 
When  my  spirit  was  overwhelmed  within  me.— Psalm? 
142:3. 

He  that  is  of  a  faithful  spirit.— Prov.  11:13. 
Hasty  of  spirit.— Prov.  14:29. 

Haughty  spirit.— Prov.  16:18. 

Humble  spirit.— Prov.  16:19. 

Broken  spirit.— Prov.  17:22. 

Excellent  spirit.— Prov.  17:27. 

The  spirit  of  a  man  will  sustain  his  Infirmities;  but  a 
wounded  spirit  who  can  bear.— Prov.  18:14. 

Rule  over  his  own  spirit.— Prov.  25:28. 

Vexation  of  spirit.— Eccles.  4:6. 

Patient  in  spirit;  proud  in  spirit.— Eccles.  7:8. 

They  that  erred  in  spirit.— Isa.  29:24. 

Grieved  in  spirit.— Tsa.  54:6. 

Contrite  and  humble  spirit.— Isa.  57:15. 

His  spirit  was  troubled.— Dan.  2:1. 

My  spirit  was  troubled.— Dan.  2:3. 

Excellent  spirit.— Dan.  5:12. 

I  was  grieved  in  my  spirit  in  the  midst  of  my  body.— 
l>an.  7:15. 

Jesus  perceived  in  his  spirit.— Mark  2:8. 

The  child  grew  and  waxed  strong  in  spirit.— Luke  1:80. 

My  spirit  hath  rejoiced  in  God  my  Savior.— Luke  1:47. 

In  that  hour  Jesus  rejoiced  in  spirit.— Luke  10:21. 

He  groaned  in  spirit  and  was  troubled.— Jne.  11:33. 

Spirit  was  stirred  in  him.— Acts  17:16. 

Paul  was  pressed  in  spirit.— Acts  18:5. 

Paul  purposed  in  the  spirit.— Acts  19:21. 

My  spirit  prayeth.     I  will  pray  with  the  spirit.    I  win 
sing  with  the  spirit.— 1  Cor.  14:14, 15. 

I  had  no  rest  in  my  spirit.— 2  Cor.  2:13. 
The  foregoing  passages,  containing  the  word 
spirit,  clearly  show  that  the  spirit  is  a  component 
part  of  man,  Adventist  authors  to  the  contrary 


SOMETIMES  SYNONYMOUS.  67 

notwithstanding.  The  adjectives  and  verbs  used 
in  connection  with  it  indicate,  in  a  degree,  the 
characteristics  and  capabilities  of  the  "spirit  of 
man."  The  verbs  show  what  the  spirit  can  do, 
while  in  the  body;  the  adjectives  denote  a  "state 
of  mind,"  or  "state  of  feeling."  while  the  spirit 
denotes  the  feelings,  mind,  or  conscious  part  of 
man. 

The  attributes  ascribed  to  the  spirit  abund- 
antly prove  that  it  is  a  conscious  intelligence ;  and 
the  connections  (which  the  reader  would  do  well 
to  examine)  show,  in  some  passages  at  least,  that 
it  is  possessed  of  agency,  and  is  accountable  to 
G-od.  Some  of  these  attributes  are,  willingness, 
sorrow,  guile,  anguish,  contrition,  diligence,  faith- 
fulness, hastiness,  haughtiness,  humility,  excel- 
lence, patience,  perception,  joy,  purpose  or  design, 
fervency,  etc.  But,  we  are  told,  these  things  sim- 
ply belong  to  man  as  an  organized  being.  Yes, 
certainly.  But  to  what  part  of  man  do  they 
belong  ?  To  that  part  which  the  Bible  calls  the 
"spirit  of  man,"  "a  spirit  in  man,"  etc. 

We  now  proceed  to  show  that  spirit  and  soul 
are  sometimes  used  synonymously.  We  are  not 
concerned  about  how  many  meanings  or  applica- 
tions these  words  may  have  when  no  reference  is 
had  to  the  conscious,  "inner  man."  Their  appli- 
cation to  some  particular  part  of  man  which 
either  belongs  to  the  body  or  spirit ;  to  beasts, 
birds,  or  the  creatures  "in  the  sea,"  does  not  harm 
us  in  the  least.  Time  spent  in  pointing  out  the 
passages  which  show  that  the  words  soul  and 
spirit  have  these  applications,  as  a  supposed  argu- 
ment against  our  position,  is  time  wasted.  Ad- 
ventist  authors  claim  that  soul  and  spirit  are  not 
synonymous,  and  give  as  a  reason  that  nephesh  and 
psuvhe  are  never  translated  spirit,  and  ruach  and 
pn<<uma  are  never  translated  soul.  Speaking  of  the 


HEBREW  AND  GREEK. 

Hebrew  and  Greek  for  spirit,  (r^ch  and  pnei.ma) 
Mr.  Grant  says:  "If  soul  and  spirit  are  synony- 
mous, why  are  not  these  words  sometimes  ren- 
dered soul?"— "WHAT  is  MAN,"  p.  29. 

But  upon  examination  we  find  that  these  terms  (sou] 
and  spirit.  Author.)  are  never  from  the  same  original 
word,  though  used  hundreds  of  times;  hence  soul  and 
spirit  are  not  the  same,  etc.  ADVENTISM,  p.  56. 

These  terms  are  not  interchangeable.  That  is,  the 
words  translated  soul  are  never  translated  spirit;  neither 
are  the  words  which  are  translated  spirit  ever  translated 
soul;  and  when  a  minister  uses  them  interchangeably  he 
only  shows  that  he  is  either  ignorant,  or  a  knave,  or  both- 
—"LIFE  VERSUS  DEATH."  by  F.  O.  Watkins,  p.  5. 

Soma  is  the  Greek  for  body ;  sarx,  for  flesh. 
Som  i  is  never  translated  flesh  ;  sarx  is  never  trans- 
lated body :  and  yet  these  two  terms,  body  and 
flesh,  are  used  interchangeably. 

Nevertheless,  to  abide  in  the  flesh  Is  more  needful  for 
you.— Phil.  1:24. 

Therefore  we  are  always  confident,  knowing  thatt 
whilst  we  are  at  home  in  the  body,  we  are  absent  from  the 
Lord:  (For  we  walk  by  faith,  not  by  sight,)  We  are  confi- 
dent, I  say,  and  willing  rather  to  be  absent  from  the  body 
and  to  be  present  with  the  Lord.— 2  Cor.  5:6,  7,  8. 

By  comparing  a  few  passages  in  which  the 
words  spirit  and  soul  are  found,  we  may  easily  see 
that  they  are  sometimes  used  interchangeably. 


SPIRIT. 

God  is  a  Spirit:  and  they 
that  worship  him  must  wor- 
ship him  in  spirit  and  in 
truth.— Jno.  4:24. 

Now  the  Lord  is  that  Spir- 
it: and  where  the  Spirit  of 
the  Lord  is,  there  is  liberty. 
-2  Cor.  3:17. 


SOUL. 

Your  new-moons  and  your 
appointed  feasts  my  soul 
hateth:  they  are  a  trouble 
unto  me;  1  am  weary  to 
bear  them.— Isa.  1:14. 

Be  thou  instructed.  O  Jer- 
usalem, lest  my  soul  depart 
from  thee;  lest  T  make  thee 
desolate,  a  land  not  inhab- 
ited.—Jer.  6:8. 


The  above  passages  show  that  both  soul  and 
spirit  are  applied  to  God,  therefore  they  are  syn- 
onymous. 


PASSAGES  COMPARED. 


69 


SPIRIT. 

Now,  while  Paul  waited 
for  them  at  Athens,  his 
spirit  was  stirred  in  him, 
when  he  saw  the  city  whol- 
ly given  to  idolatry.  Acts 

And  when  Jesus  had  cried 
with  a  loud  voice,  he  said. 
Father,  into  thy  hands  I 
commend  my  spirit:  and 
having  said  thus  he  gave 
up  the  ghost.  Luke  23:46. 


SOUL. 

But  his  flesh  upon  him 
shall  have  pain,  and  his 
soul  within  him  shall 
mourn.  Job  14:22. 


And  fear  not  them  which 
kill  the  body,  but  are  not 
able  to  kill  the  soul:  but 
rather  fear  him  which  is 
able  to  destroy  both  soul 
and  body  in  hell.  Matt. 
10:28. 


The  soul,  as  a  component  part  of  man,  is  that 
which  man  can  not  kill.  At  death,  Jesus  com- 
mends his  spirit  into  the  hands  of  God. 


SPIRIT. 

Watch  and  pray,  that  ye 
enter  not  into  temptation: 
the  spirit  indeed  is  willing 
but  the  flesh  is  weak.  Matt. 
26:41. 

And  he  put  them  all  out, 
and  took  her  by  the  hand, 
and  called,  saying,  Maid, 
arise.  And  her  spirit  came 
again,  and  she  arose 
straightway;  and  he  com- 
manded to  give  her  meat. 
Luke  8:54,  55. 


I  Daniel  was  grieved  In 
my  spirit  in  the  midst  of  my 
body,  and  the  visions  of  my 
head  troubled  me.— Daniel 
7:15. 


SOUL. 

Beloved,  I  wish  above  all 
things  that  thou  mayest 
prosper  and  be  in  health. 
even  as  thy  soul  prospereth. 
—3  Jno.  2. 

And  he  stretched  himself 
upon  the  child  three  times 
and  cried  unto  the  Lord, 
and  said,  O  Lord  my  God,  I 
pray  thee,  let  this  child's 
soul  come  into  him  again. 
,  And  the  Lord  heard  the 
I  voice  of  Elijah;  and  the 
soul  of  the  child  came  into 
him  again,  and  he  revived. 
—1  Kings  17:21,  22. 

With  my  soul  have  I  de- 
sired thee  in  the  night;  yea, 
with  my  spirit  within  me 
will  I  seek  thee  early.— Isa. 
26:9. 


In  1  Peter  3 : 19,  we  read  that  Christ  "preached 
unto  the  spirits  in  prison."  In  Murdock's  Syriac, 
which  is  a  translation  of  the  "Peshito  Syriac  New 
Testament,"  we  have  the  following  rendering  of 
the  same  passage:  "And  he  preached  to  those 
souls  which  were  detained  in  hades."  Thus  we 
have  not  only  a  synonymous  use  of  spirit  and  soul, 
but  of  spirits  and  souls. 

Dr.  Roberts,  in  "COMPENDIUM  TO  THE  RE- 
VISED VERSION"  of  the  English  New  Testament. 


70  USED  INTERCHANGEABLY. 

p.  26,  under  the  head  of  Syriac  Versions,  ranks  this 
one  among  the  best.  He  says.  "By  far  the  best  of 
these  is  thePeshito,  (i.  e.,  simple,)  which  is  truly  an 
admirable  translation.  There  is  no  doubt  that  it 
was  made  in  the  second  century,  and  were  we  sure 
that  we  possessed  it  in  its  original  form  it  would 
thus  be  of  the  very  highest  authority." 

Murdock  claims  to  give  a  literal  translation  of 
this  version,  referred  to  by  Dr.  Roberts  as  the  best 
among  the  Syriac,  and  an  "admirable  translation." 

The  strength  of  the  claim  made  by  Grant, 
Sheldon  and  Watkins  is,  virtually,  upon  the 
hypothesis  that  two  different  words  in  the  Hebrew 
and  Greek  can  not  properly  represent  the  same 
thing,  which  is  not  true.  And  if  two  different 
words  in  the  original  are  sometimes  used  to  repre- 
sent the  same  thing,  then  their  correct  equivalents 
in  English  may  be  properly  used  to  represent  the 
same  thing.  It  is  not  difficult  to  see  why  mortal- 
soulists  oppose  the  idea  of  spirit  and  soul  being 
used  interchangeably  ;  but  upon  their  own  grounds 
of  objection  their  only  evidence  is  destroyed  and 
the  weakness  of  their  position  exposed. 

Isaiah  and  Job  were  evidently  right  when 
they  used  these  words  interchangeably: 

With  my  soul  have  I  desired  thee  in  the  night;  yea 
with  my  spirit  within  me  will  I  seek  thee  early. --isa.  26:9.  * 

Therefore  I  will  not  refrain  my  mouth ;  I  will  speak  in 
the  anguish  of  my  spirit;  I  will  complain  in  the  bitterness 
of  my  soul.— Job  7:11. 

Let  us  give  a  little  more  attention  to  the  word 
soul.  The  personal  mission  of  Jesus  was  to  the 
Jews.  (Matt.  15  : 24 ;  Jno.  4 : 22.)  When  he  spoke 
the  language  which  was  current  in  his  time,  with- 
out any  protest  against  it,  we  are  at  liberty  to 
interpret  it  in  the  light  of  its  popular  meaning. 
If  this  is  not  true,  how  can  we  accept  him  as  the 
best  and  greatest  (hence  the  most  correct)  teacher 
that  was  ever  sent  to  man  by  the  divine  Being  ? 


SOUL  AND  BODY.  7 1 

It  would  destroy  the  truth  of  our  Lord's  sayings,  if  we 
could  conceive  him  to  have  used  popular  language  which 
did  not  point  at  truth.  And,  accordingly,  where  such 
language  was  current,  we  find  him,  not  adopting,  but  pro- 
testing against  it.  (See  Matt.  15:5,  6.)  Alford,  as  quoted  by 

Haley.— "DISCREPANCIES  OF  THE  BlBLE,"p.  191. 

The  Jews  believed  the  soul  to  be  a  conscious 
entity.  They  believed  in  its  immortality,  (with 
the  exception  of  the  Sadducees,)  and  so  did  the 
Greeks.  That  they  used  the  term  soul  in  other 
senses,  we  do  not  deny;  immortal-soulists  so  use 
it  to-day.  But  that  this  was  its  leading  signifi- 
cance is  evident. 

We  have  referred  to  and  quoted  Matt.  10  : 28. 
We  now  examine  it,  with  Luke  12 : 4,  5. 

And  fear  not  them  which  kill  the  body,  but  are  not  able 
to  kill  the  soul;  but  rather  fear  him  which  is  able  to  destroy 
both  soul  and  body  in  hell.— Matt.  10:28. 

And  I  say  unto  you,  my  friends,  Be  not  afraid  of  them 
that  kill  the  body,  and  after  that,  have  no  more  that  they 
can  do.  But  I  will  forewarn  you  whom  ye  shall  fear:  Fear 
him,  which  after  he  hath  killed,  hath  power  to  cast  into 
hell;  yea,  I  say  unto  you,  Fear  him. —Luke  12:4,  5. 

As  some  one  has  truly  said,  "Here  is  a  pyramid 
of  truth"  in  small  compass.  By  reading  all  of 
Matthew  tenth  chapter,  and  a  portion  of  Luke 
twelfth,  we  learn  that  Jesus  was  sending  out  his 
apostles  to  preach.  He  plainly  tells  them  how  bit- 
terly they  will  be  persecuted. 

Behold  I  send  you  forth  as  sheep  in  the  midst  of 
wolves.  .  .  .  But  beware  of  men:  for  they  will  deliver 
you  up  to  the  councils  and  they  will  scourge  you  in  their 
synagogues;  and  ye  shall  be  brought  before  governors  and 
kings  for  my  sake,  for  a  testimony  against  them. —Matt. 
10:16. 17. 

And  the  brother  shall  deliver  up  the  brother  to  death, 
and  the  father  the  child:  and  the  children  shall  rise  up 
against  their  parents,  and  cause  them  to  be  put  to  death. 
And  ye  shall  be  hated  of  all  men  for  my  name's  sake- 
(Verses  21,  22.) 

The  above  will  help  us  to  understand  what  is 
meant  by  verse  28.  The  apostles  were  to  be  vio- 
lently persecuted,  and  so  were  their  converts. 


,2  THE  SOUL  CAN  NOT  BE  KILLED. 

But  they  are  told  by  the  great  Master  to  be  of 
good  cheer  and  not  fear  their  enemies,  for  though 
they  could  "kill  the  b«dym  they  could  not  "kill 
the  soul"  What  body?  The  body  of  the  dis- 
ciple. What  soul?  The  soul  of  the  dis- 
ciple, of  course.  If  the  soul  in  man  only 
means  "animal  life,"  (the  life  of  the  body)  why 
could  not  their  enemies  destroy  it  ?  If  after  they 
had  killed  the  body,  they  could  do  no  more,  why 
do  mortal-soulists  tell  us  (with  the  Sadducees) 
that  the  soul  "always  dies  with  the  body  ?"  Why 
too,  did  Jesus  tell  the  disciples  to  fear  Him  who 
a  f ter  he  had  killed  had  power  to  cast  into  hell  ?  If 
conscious  existence  ceases  at  death,  why  fear  any- 
thing which  may  be  done  to  the  body  "after"  that 
by  God,  men  or  devils  ? 

Mortal-soulists  treat  this  scripture  in  two  dif- 
ferent ways.  Some  make  a  labored  effort  to  explain 
it  away,  and  thus  reveal  the  weakness  of  their 
position.  Others  pass  over  it  very  lightly  and 
hurry  on  to  more  desirable  ground. 

"THANATOPSIS,"  by  Wiley  Jones,  p.  18. 

This  was  said  not  to  the  wicked  but  to  the  disciples, 
called  "my  friends"  in  the  parallel  place,  Luke  12:4.  The 
word  "psuche"  here  rendered  soul,  occurs  about  103  times 
in  the  New  Testament,  being  about  40  times  rendered  life, 
and  this,  I  think,  is  its  true  meaning  here.  But  why  are 
persecutors  who  burn  the  Christian's  body  unable  to  kill 
the  life  ?  Because  the  "life  is  hid  with  Christ  in  God." 

Col.  3:3.  Persecutors  by  killing  the  body  can  only  inflict 
on  the  Christian  a  temporary  "sleep"  from  which  he  will 
be  sure  to  awake.  But  when  the  sinner  is  destroyed  at  the 
judgment  his  life  will  be  finally  extinguished  and  his  body 
consumed  to  ashes.  Therefore  fear  God  who  alone  can 
thus  "destroy  life  and  body  in  hell." 

This  seems  to  be  a  frank  effort  to  interpret 
this  scripture  in  harmony  with  the  views  of  mor- 
tal-soulists ;  but,  as  will  be  seen,  it  is  a  failure. 

Wm.  Sheldon,  in  "ADVENTISM,"  p.  63,  after 
quoting  part  of  Matt.  10 : 28,  adds  this  explanation  • 


MOBTAL-SOULISTS'  POSITION.  73 

This  future  life  of  the  saint  is  out  of  the  reach  of  the 
assassin;  but  the  sinner's  future  life  [soul  or  "psuche"]  will 
be  destroyed  with  the  body  in  hell,  at  the  judgment  day. 

Now  we  have  the  position  fairly  before  us,  and 
what  shall  we  do  ?  Answer.  Simply  compare  it  with 
the  scriptures  cited  and  decide  for  ourselves.  A 
fair  comparison  is  sufficient  to  expose  the  weak- 
nfess  and  inconsistency  of  the  position  assumed  by 
Jones  and  Sheldon. 

It  will  be  observed  that  in  order  to  place  their 
peculiar  construction  upon  Matt.  10 : 28,  these  men 
ignore  the  rendering  of  King  James'  version  by 
introducing  the  word  "life"  instead  of  "soul;"  but 
the  Revised  Version,  Geneva,  Douay  and  Syriac, 
all  render  it  "soul"  in  harmony  with  King  James. 
Again  :  We  are  told  that  nephesh  and  psuche  when 
referring  to  the  soul  in  man  denote  "animal  life"  or 
"desire,"  and  the  words  never  denote  immortal- 
ity ;  but  now  they  are  suddenly  transferred  and 
made  to  apply  to  the  "life"  that  is  hid  with  Christ 
in  God !  Is  this  life  immortal  ? 

This  life  that  is  hid  with  Christ  in  God,  Mr. 
Sheldon  denominates  "the  future  life  of  the 
saint ;"  and  their  stated  position  is  that  the  right- 
eous will  not  receive  it  before  the  day  of  judgment. 
How  kind  and  thoughtful  it  was  in  the  Savior,  the 
great  "Teacher  sent  from  God,"  to  inform  the  dis- 
ciples that  the  life  which  they  did  not  possess,  nor 
could  not  till  the  day  of  judgment,  their  enemies 
were  not  able  to  kill ! 

Further :  Does  the  word  soul  as  found  in  this 
verse  apply,  first,  to  "eternal  life,"  which  they  did 
not  have,  only  in  prospect,  which  was  hid  away 
"with  Christ  in  God,"  and  second,  to  the  life  of  the 
wicked?  What  doctrine  could  not  be  sustained 
by  such  a  mode  of  interpretation  as  this  ? 

The  truth  is  that  the  same  soul  which  man 
could  not  kill,  God  had  power  to  "destroy,"  or 
"cast  into  hell."  If  that  was  the  soul  in  the  dis- 


74  UNSCRIPTURAL  AND  ILLOGICAL. 

ciple,  then,  clearly,  it  does  not  die  with  the  body ; 
but  if  it  were  ' 'eternal  life,"  which  the  disciples 
"had  by  promise,"  then  we  are  to  suppose  (1)  that 
the  disciples  needed  to  be  told  that  after  the  res- 
urrection and  the  judgment,  their  persecutors 
could  not  kill  them  !  and  (2)  that  the  "life"  which 
"is  hid  with  Christ  in  God,"  that  is,  "eternal  life," 
God  may  commit  to  eternal  oblivion  in  the  fires  of 
gehennall  That  which  God  can  do,  he  way  do.  If 
it  is  possible  for  him  to  lie,  then  it  is  possible  for  him 
to  have  the  disposition  to  lie ;  and  if  possible  for  him 
to  have  the  disposition  to  lie,  then  it  is  possible  for 
him  to  lie.  If,  therefore,  it  is  possible  for  God  to 
destroy  the  "future  life  of  the  saint,  "(that  is,  accord- 
ing to  Adventism,  put  an  end  to  his  conscious  exist- 
ence) then  it  is  possible  for  him  to  have  the  dispo- 
sition to  do  so ;  and  if  it  is  possible  for  the  Infinite 
and  Omnipotent  One  to  have  the  disposition  to  kill 
those  who  have  "eternal  life,"  in  the  resurrection, 
then  it  is  possible,  if  not  proh«bi<>,  that  they  will 
all  be  killed,  and  become  "as  though  they  had  not 
been !  1 1 

Let  us  leave  that  which  is  so  manifestly  illog- 
ical aad  unscriptural,  and  come  back  to  the  simple 
and  cheering  truth  as  presented  by  the  great 
Teacher.  Body  and  soul  are  represented  as  com- 
ponent parts  of  man.  The  body,  man  can  kill ;  the 
soul,  he  can  not.  God  can  "destroy"  both,  that  is, 
"cast  into  hell,"  which  does  not  denote  an  end  to 
conscious  being,  but  rather  a  condition,  directly  op- 
posite to  eternal  life.  (This  will  be  made  plain  in 
another  part  of  our  work.)  There  is  not  even  an 
intimation  of  the  sleep  of  unconsciousness,  but 
the  survival  of  the  soul  after  the  death  of  the  body  is 
plainly  taught,  thus  rendering  an  intelligent  be 
lief  in  the  resurrection,  as  taught  in  the  gospel, 
possible.  If  we  love  God  and  keep  his  command- 


SOULS  DEPART  AND  RETURN.         75 

ments,  we  shall  be  rewarded  according  to  the 
precious  promises  of  the  gospel ;  while  the  most 
unrelenting  cruelty  of  our  persecutors  ends  with 
the  destruction  of  the  body.  They  "can  not  kill  the 
soul."  It  is  better,  far  better,  to  be  loyal  to  God 
and  true  to  the  demands  of  his  word.  He  has 
power  "to  destroy  both  soul  and  body  in  hell." 

In  Genesis  35:18,  the  death  of  Eachel  is  thus 
recorded : 

And  it  came  to  pass,  as  her  soul  was  In  departing  (for 
she  died)  that  she  called  his  name  Ben-oni:  but  his  father 
called  him  Benjamin, 

In  1  Kings  17  :21,  22,  we  learn  that  in  answer 
to  Elijah's  prayer  the  widow's  son  was  raised  to 
life.  The  prophet  prayed, 

Let  this  child's  soul  come  into  him  again.  And  the 
Lord  heard  the  voice  of  Elijah;  and  the  soul  of  the  child 
came  into  him  again,  and  he  revived. 

If  when  "the  soul  of  the  child  came  into  him, J» 
"he  revived,"  then  when  the  soul  departed,  or 
went  out  of  him,  he  died.  So  death  is  the  depart- 
ure of  the  soul.  But  we  are  told  that  soul,  here, 
only  means  "animal  life,"  and  death  is  the  extinc- 
tion of  life.  But  this  is  simply  the  expression  of  an 
unproved  opinion.  Evidently  soul  means  in  these 
passages  just  what  it  does  in  Matthew  10 : 28,  al- 
ready examined.  Paul  represents  his  death  as  a 
departure  "to  be  with  Christ;"  and  his  life  as 
abiding  "in  the  flesh."  (Phil.  1 : 21,  22 ;  2  Tim.  4 : 6.) 

In  3  Jno.  1,  2,  is  found  a  plain  distinction  be- 
tween body  and  soul. 

The  Elder  unto  the  well-beloved  Gaius,  whom  I  love  In 
the  truth.  Beloved,  I  wish  above  all  things  that  thou  may- 
est  prosper  and  be  in  health,  even  as  thy  soul  prospereth. 

John  virtually  admits  that  the  soul  of  Gaius 
might  be  in  a  prosperous  condition  while  he  was 
in  poor  health.  How  could  this  be  if  soul  here 
means  "animal  life"  — the  life  of  the  body?  Or 
does  it  denote  that  which  Gaius  did  not  have,  that 
which  was  no  part  of  him,  that  is,  "the  future  life 


76  THE  SOUL  CAN  SIN. 

of  the  saint,"— the  life  which  "is  hid  with  Christ 
in  God  ?  "  If  this  is  what  it  means,  then  we  have 
the  apostle  informing  Gains  that  his  particular 
portion  of  "eternal  life,"  which  was  "with  God," 
was  in  a  prosperous  condition  !  How  thoughtful 
and  kind  in  John  to  inform  Gaius  that  God  was 
taking  good  care  of  his  soul  in  Heaven  ! 

In  Micah  6:7,  the  same  plain  distinction  is 
made,  and  it  is  also  shown  that  the  soul  can  sin, 
hence  it  is  accountable  to  God. 

Shall  I  give  my  first  born  for  my  transgression,  the  fruit 
of  my  body  for  the  sin  of  my  soul  ? 

What  the  prophet  here  calls  soul  is  evidently 
what  James  calls  spirit.  James  4 : 5. 

Do  ye  think  that  the  scripture  saith  in  vain,  The  spirit 
that  dwelleth  in  us  lusteth  to  envy  ? 
Eevised  Version : 

Doth  the  spirit  which  he  made  to  dwell  In  us  long  unto 
envying  ? 

In  harmony  with  our  position  on  the  "spirit 
in  man,"  sometimes  called  soul,  are  the  teachings 
of  the  New  Testament  Scriptures  concerning  the 
" 'inward  man." 

For  which  cause  we  faint  not;  but  though  our  outward 
man  perish,  yet  the  inward  man  is  renewed  day  by  day.— 
2  Cor.  4  : 16. 

For  I  delight  in  the  law  of  God,  after  the  inward  man. 
—Romans?  :  22, 

But  let  it  be  the  hidden  man  of  the  heart,  in  that  which 
is  not  corruptible,  even  the  ornament  of  a  meek  and  quiet 
spirit,  which  is  in  the  sight  of  God  of  great  price.— 1  Peter 
3:4. 

That  he  would  grant  you,  according  to  the  riches  of  his 
glory,  to  be  strengthened  with  might  by  his  Spirit  in  the 
inner  man  :— Eph.  3  : 16. 

I  knew  a  man  in  Christ  above  fourteen  years  agot 
(whether  in  the  body,  I  can  not  tell :  or  whether  out  of  the 
body,  I  cannot  tell:  God  knoweth;)  such  a  one  caught  up 
to  the  third  heaven.  And  I  knew  such  a  man,  (whether 
in  the  body,  or  out  of  the  body,  I  can  not  tell:  God  know- 
eth;) How  that  he  was  caught  up  into  paradise,  and  heard 
unspeakable  words,  which  it  is  not  lawfui  for  man  to  utter. 
—2  Cor.  12:2^4. 


OUR  HOUSE  FROM  HEAVEN.  77 

The  first  passage  quoted  is  closely  connected 
with  the  first  part  of  the  next  chapter  wherein  the 
body  is  represented  as  a  "house"  or  ' 'tabernacle," 
in  which  "we  groan,  desiring  to  be  clothed  upon 
with  our  house  which  is  from  heaven."  "For  we 
that  are  in  this  tabernacle  do  groan  being  bur- 
dened;" and  "yet,"  thank  God,  "the  inward  man 
is  renewed  day  by  day." 

The  word  * 'after"  in  the  second  quotation, 
comes  from  the  Greek  kata  which  literally  means 
"drawn  towards,  according  to."  That  is,  the  law  of 
God  is  peculiarly  adapted  to  the  needs  of  the 
"inward  maw,"  just  as  "the  bread  that  perisheth" 
is  peculiarly  adapted  to  the  needs  of  the  "out- 
ward man." 

In  connection  with  Paul's  statement  in  Rom- 
ans read  Psalms  1 : 2. 

But  his  delight  is  in  the  law  of  the  Lord;  and  in  his  law 
doth  he  meditate  day  and  night. 

Also  Psalms  19 : 7. 
The  law  of  the  Lord  is  perfect,  converting  the  soul. 

In  what  manner  Paul  was  able  to  appropriate 
"the  law  of  God"  to  his  needs,  is  made  plain  in 
Romans  1:9. 

For  God  is  my  witness,  whom  I  serve  with  my  spirit  in 
the  gospel  of  his  Son,  etc. 

Thus  it  is  the  "spirit  in  man"  that  is  able  tcr 
receive  and  assimilate  the  imperishable  food  pro- 
vided by  the  divine  Being. 

In  the  third  passage,  Peter  contrasts  the 
"inward  man,"  adorned  with  the  graces  of  the  gos- 
pel, with  the  "outward  man,"  adorned  with  fine 
apparel  and  jewels.  One  writer  suggests  that  we 
would  not  suppose  a  spirit  being  to  be  hid  away  in 
the  "fleshly  tablets  of  the  heart."  Why  does  this 
writer  try  to  confine  us  to  this  one  signification  of 
the  word  "heart?"  In  the  passage  quoted,  it 
comes  from  the  Greek  kardia  and  frequently  de' 
notes  the  mind— the  seat  of  thought— or  the  spirit 


78  HEART  A1STD  MIND. 

within.  The  same  word  is  found  in  Matt.  5 : 8. 
*  'Blessed  are  the  pure  in  heart  for  they  shall  see 
God."  Does  this  refer  to  the  physical  condition  of 
the  fleshy  tablet  called  the  "heart  ?"  Surely  not. 

But  I  say  unto  you,  That  whosoever  looketh  upon  a 
woman  to  lust  after  her  hath  committed  adultery  already 
with  her  in  his  heart.— Matt.  5:28. 

Wherefore  think  ye  evil  in  your  hearts  ? — Matt.  9:4. 

For  I  am  meek  and  lowly  in  heart.— Matt.  11:29. 

For  out  of  the  abundance  of  the  heart  the  mouth  speak- 
eth— Matt:  12:34. 

In  all  these  passages  heart  comes  from  the 
same  word,  and  many  more  of  like  import  might 
be  cited.  While  Peter's  language  may  be  some- 
what imperfect  he  evidently  referred  to  the  con- 
scious entity  in  man,  which  is  also  called  "man.'5 
To  adorn,  means  to  "deck  or  decorate,  to  beautify, '' 
etc.  Whenever  "adorning"  is  done  there  must  be 
something  to  be  adorned.  "Outward  adorning"  is 
done  on  the  "outward  man ;"  inward  adorning  on 
the  "inward  man."  It  is  not  the  adorning  which 
is  called  man,  but  that  which  is  adorned. 

The  Syriac,  which  Mr.  Grant  also  quotes  sev- 
eral times,  is  very  plain  on  this  passage : 

But  adorn  yourselves  in  the  hidden  person  of  the  heart 
with  a  mild  and  uncorrupted  spirit,  an  ornament  that  is 
precious  before  God. 

The  statement  of  Paul  in  the  fourth  passage 
quoted  is  very  plain.  The  operation  of  God's 
Spirit  "in  the  inner  man,"  produces  regeneration. 
The  inner  man  is  there  before  conversion ;  but, 
through  obedience  to  the  gospel,  and  by  the  agen- 
cy of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  "inner  man"  is  trans- 
formed, "born  again." 

Not  by  works  of  righteousness  which  we  have  done,  but 
according  to  his  mercy  he  saved  us.  by  the  washing  of  re- 
generation and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost.— Titus  3:5. 

That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh;  and  that  which 
is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit.— John  3:6. 

The  fifth  quotation  reveals  Paul's  theology  on 
this  point.  He  "knew  a  man"  who  was  caught  up 


PAUL'S  THEOLOGY.  79 

to  the  "third  heaven,"  or  "paradise,"  where  he 
heard  and  understood,  and  yet  he  could  not  tell 
whether  this  "man"  was  "in  the  body  or  out  of  the 
body !"  We  are  sometimes  told  that  if  Paul  did 
not  know  whether  the  man  was  "in  the  body  or 
out  of  the  body,"  he  was  a  very  poor  witness.  We 
answer,  this  scripture  is  not  quoted  to  prove  that 
the  man  whom  Paul  knew  was  "out  of  the  body ;'» 
that  would  be  very  foolish,  indeed,  when  Paul  says 
he  did  not  know :  but  what  was  Paul's  belief  con- 
cerning the  nature  of  man  ?  This :  that  the  con- 
scious entity  within  is  properly  called  "man." 
That  this  "man"  may  live  "out  of  the  body"  as 
well  as  "in  the  body"  in  a  conscious  state. 

"But,"  it  is  said,  "this  was  only  a  vision. '» 
That  does  not  help  the  matter  in  the  least.  It 
still  shows  Paul's  belief  concerning  the  nature  of 
man.  Was  Paul's  theology  at  fault  too?  Is  it 
unsafe  to  trust  him  ?  There  were  two  kinds  of 
visions  had  by  the  Lord's  servants  according  to 
the  Bible.  One  was  a  *  'present  reality" — something 
seen.  (Vision  literally  means  sight.)  The  other 
was  a  representation  of  something,  as  it  was  at  the 
time,  or  as  it  would  be  in  the  future.  In  both  cases 
a  vision,  a  true  vision,  is  a  correct  representation 
of  things  as  they  do  exist  or  will  exist.  But  it  can 
not  even  be  proved  that  this  was  a  vision.  (See 
verse  1.)  The  most  that  can  be  properly  said  is 
that  it  may  have  been  a  vision,  or  it  may  have 
been  a  revelation.  No  matter  what  posi- 
tion is  taken,  it  clearly  sets  forth  Paul's 
belief  concerning  the  "w/><"  which  may  live  in  a 
conscious  state  in  or  out  of  the  body.  What  mor- 
tal-soulist  would  have  used  such  language  as  Paul 
here  uses  ?  Did  you  ever  hear  any  one  of  them 
relate  some  peculiar  or  striking  experience,  in 
which  he  was  unable  to  say  whether  he  was  "in 
the  body  or  out  of  the  body?"  Perhaps  not. 


80  FLESH  AND  SPIRIT. 

Paul,  in  this  scripture,  evidently  refers  to  the 
same  component  part  of  man  which  he  denomi- 
nates the  "spirit"  in  1  Cor.  5  :5. 

To  deliver  such  an  one  unto  Satan  for  the  destruction 
of  the  flesh,  that  the  spirit  may  be  saved  in  the  day  of  the 
Lord  Jesus. 

Here  the  possibility  of  the  spirit  being  saved 
after  the  body,  or  "flesh,"  is  destroyed,  is  admit- 
ted. Mr.  Grant  says,  "This  one  passage  should  not 
be  so  distorted  as  to  contradict  all  other  plain  Scrip- 
tures," etc.— "THE  SPIRIT  IN  MAN,"  p.  28.  No ;  it 
should  not.  But  what  a  pity  that  Mr.  Grant,  after 
giving  such  good  advice  should  go  to  work  and  dis- 
tort it  clear  out  of  shape  in  order  to  make  it  har- 
monize, not  with  "other  Scriptures,"  but  with  the 
dogma  of  mortal-soulism !  The  truth  is,  they 
must  either  ignore  the  rendering  in  King  James' 
Version  or  admit  that  the  passage  stands  in  their 
way. 

Mr.  Grant  proceeds  to  give  several  other  trans- 
lations of  the  passage,  and  then  construes  "de- 
struction" to  mean  "chastisement  or  'punish- 
ment,' "  and  spirit  to  mean  "disposition."  This 
is  a  complete  yielding  of  their  position  on  the 
word  "destruction"  as  applied  to  man.  If  "de- 
struction" means  death,  and  salvation  life,  (literal 
death  and  literal  life)  as  we  are  informed,  then 
Paul  believed  that  the  spirit  might  be  a  subject 
of  salvation  after  the  death  of  the  body.  At  any 
rate,  he  draws  a  clear  distinction  between  body  and 
spirit,  and  we  have  already  learned  what  Paul 
means  by  the  spirit  in  man. 

Mr.  Grant  quotes  a  few  words  of  the  passage 
from  the  Syriac :  "That  in  spirit  he  may  have 
life."  Let  us  read  the  whole  verse  : 

And  that  ye  deliver  him  over  to  Satan,  for  the  destrucr 
tion  of  the  flesh,  that  in  spirit  he  may  have  life,  in  the  day 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Messiah. 

Notice,  the  "destruction  of  the  flesh"  was  to 
come  first,  and  the  "life,"  or  salvation,  of  the 


GRANT'S  WITNESS  AGAINST  HIM.  81 

spirit  afterwards,  and  in  the  da;/  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Messiah."  As  to  what  is  meant  by  the  phrase  "in 
spirit,"  it  is  certainly  fair  and  safe  to  let  the  Syr- 
iac  interpret  itself.  In  1  Peter  3:18,  speaking 
with  reference  to  the  death  of  Christ,  Peter  says  : 
"And  he  died  in  body,  but  lived  inspirit."  The 
life  of  the  spirit,  then,  was  after  the  death  of  the 
body ;  and  Mr.  Grant's  own  witness  is  against  him. 

We  have  now  presented  five  plain  passages 
from  the  New  Testament  concerning  the  "inner" 
or  "inward  man."  They  all  come  from  the  Greek 
anthropos,  which  literally  means  "a  human  being." 
Our  opponents,  however,  claim  that  the  "inner 
man"  is  the  "new  man"  in  Christ,  which  we  put 
on  through  faith  and  obedience.  The  passages 
themselves,  with  their  connections,  refute  this 
claim.  The  "outward  man  is  the  body  of  flesh 
and  bones ; "  the  "inward  man"  is  that  other  part 
of  the  person  called  the  "spirit." 

The  "old  man"  with  his  deeds,  is  "the  body  of 
sin"  which  we  put  off,  while  the  "new  man"  is  the 
"righteousness  of  God"  which  we  put  on. — Kom. 
6:6;  1 :16,  17.)  But  the  "inward  man,"  of  which 
we  have  been  writing,  is  the  very  one  that  is 
changed — regenerated— through  the  transforming 
influences  of  the  gospel.  (Eph.  3:16;  Jno.  3:6; 
1  Peter  1 : 22-25 ;  Kom.  12 : 2.)  We  put  on  Christ, 
or  the  "new  man,"  but  we  do  not  put  on  the  "in- 
ward man."  In  short,  putting  off  "the  old  man 
with  his  deeds,"  and  putting  "on  the  new  man 
which  is  renewed  in  knowledge  after  the  image  of 
him  that  created  him,"  is  simply  a  change  of  char- 
acter. That  which  makes  the  man  sinful,  is  put 
away;  that  which  makes  him  righteous,  (the 
Christ-like  character)  is  put  on.  And  thus, 
through  the  power  of  the  gospel,  manifested 
because  of  his  faith  and  obedience,  he  becomes  a 
"new  creature"  in  Christ. 


82  "THE  NEW  MAN." 

In  whom  also  ye  are  circumcised  with  the  circumcision 
made  without  hands,  in  putting  off  the  body  of  the  sins  ol 
the  flesh  by  the  circumcision  of  Christ;  Buried  with  him 
in  baptism,  wherein  also  ye  are  risen  with  him  through 
the  faith  of  the  operation  of  God,  who  hath  raised  him 
from  the  dead.— Col.  2:11, 12. 

Therefore,  if  any  man  be  in  Christ,  he  Is  a  new  crea- 
ture; old  things  are  passed  away;  behold,  all  things  are 
become  new.— 2  Cor.  5:17. 

That  ye  put  off  concerning  the  former  conversation  the 
old  man,  which  Is  corrupt  according  to  the  deceitful  lusts; 
And  be  renewed  in  the  spirit  of  your  mind;  And  that  ye 
put  on  the  new  man,  which  after  God  is  created  In  right- 
eousness and  true  holiness.— Eph.  4:22-24. 

What  is  the  direct  and  powerful  agent  which 
makes  the  new  man  ?  The  Holy  Spirit.  What  is  it 
that  is  changed  and  made  new  by  the  operation  of 
God's  Spirit  ?  The  spirit  of  man. 

That  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  (God's  spirit) 
is  spirit."  (The  spirit  of  man.)— Jesus. 

"That  he  would  grant  you,  according  to  the 
riches  of  his  glory,  to  be  strengthened  with  might 
by  his  spirit  in  the  inner  man." — Paul. 

Having  shown  that  the  terms  "man"  and 
"soul"  are  applied  to  the  conscious  entity  within, 
it  now  becomes  necessary  in  order  to  make  our 
position  plain  and  comprehensive,  to  show  that 
they  are  sometimes  applied  to  the  body  only,  and 
sometimes  to  both  body  and  spirit. 

It  shall  even  be  as  when  a  hungry  man  dreameth,  and, 
behold,  he  eateth;  but  he  awaketh,  and  his  soul  is  empty: 
or  as  when  a  thirsty  man  dreameth,  and  behold  he  drink- 
eth;  but  he  awaketh,  and  behold,  he  is  faint,  and  his  soul 
hath  appetite:  so  shall  the  multitude  of  all  the  nations  be, 
that  fight  against  mount  Zion.— Isa.  29:8. 

Man  and  soul  in  this  passage  refer  to  that 
which  experiences  physical  hunger  and  thirst, 
hence  to  the  body. 

Now,  when  he  came  nigh  to  the  gate  of  the  city,  behold 
there  was  a  dead  man  carried  out,  the  only  son  of  his 
mother,  and  she  was  a  widow;  and  much  people  of  the  city 
was  with  her.— Luke  7:12. 


TERMS  MAN  AND  SOUL.  83 

It  is  admitted  that  when  a  man  is  dead,  the 
spirit  has  left  the  body. 

And  the  Lord  God  formed  man  of  the  dust  of  the 
ground,  and  breathed  into  his  nostrils  the  breath  of  life; 
and  man  became  a  living  soul.— Gen.  2:7. 

In  this  passage,  soul  evidently  denotes  the 
whole  man,  both  body  and  spirit. 

Tli en  they  that  gladly  received  his  word,  were  bap- 
tized; and  the  same  day  there  were  added  unto  them  about 
three  thousand  souls.— Acts  2:41. 

God  is  not  a  man,  that  he  should  lie;  neither  the  son  of 
man,  that  he  should  repent:  hath  he  said,  and  shall  he  not 
do  it  ?  or  hath  he  spoken,  and  shall  he  not  make  it  good  ? 
—Num.  33:19. 

No  man  can  serve  two  masters.— Matt.  6:24. 

Many  more  passages  might  be  adduced,  but 
these  are  sufficient  to  show,  in  connection  with 
our  proof  concerning  the  "inner  man"  and  soul, 
that  the  terms  man  and  soul  are  applied  (1)  to  the 
spirit  within  man  ;  (2)  to  the  body  only,  and  (3)  to 
the  whole  person,  both  soul  and  body.  The  con- 
text must  determine  how  these  terms  are  to  be 
applied. 

Mortal-soulists  object  to  this  position,  but  it 
is  harmonious  with  the  statements  of  the  Bible  ; 
and  the  statement  that  it  is  using  too  much 
liberty  in  the  application  of  Bible  terms,  is  not 
founded  in  truth,  and  comes  with  poor  grace  from 
those  who  use  so  much  latitude  in  their  efforts  to 
remove  what  seems  to  stand  in  their  way ;  and 
frequently,  too,  without  giving  us  any  authority 
(save  the  opinions  of  man)  for  the  liberty  taken. 

Having  proceeded  thus  far  with  our  investiga- 
tion, we  call  attention  to  some  collateral  evidence. 
It  is  a  fact  that  the  Bible  teaches  that  there  are 
spirit  entities  who  are  conscious  and  immortal 
beings.  They  are  God,  angels  and  demons.  These 
are  not  possesssed  of  bodies  of  flesh  and  bone, 
though  we  are  not  prepared  to  say,  in  the  tech- 
nical sense,  that  they  are  immaterial.  If  by 


84  GOD  A  SPIRIT. 

"immaterial,"  is  meant  not  composed  of  ponder- 
ous matter,  such  as  the  flesh,  bone  and  blood  of 
the  natural  body,  then  we  accept  the  application 
of  the  word  to  these  spiritual  beings  as  proper; 
but  if,  on  the  other  hand,  by  the  application  of 
this  word  to  God  and  angels,  is  meant  the  nega- 
tive of  all  that  may  be  seen  or  touched,  under  any 
circumstances  whatever,  then  we  object  to  such 
use  of  the  word.  When  we  know  so  little  of  the 
laws  and  possibilities  of  matter,  (which  our  oppo- 
nents truthfully  affirm)  and  still  less  of  the  laws 
and  possibilities  of  spirit,  we  should,  when  affirm- 
ing what  can  not  be,  concerning  the  latter,  be 
both  guarded  and  moderate. 

"God  is  a  Spirit;"  "but,"  say  our  opponents, 
"  'God  is  love ;'  but  He  is  not  all  love."  We  think 
he  is,  so  far  as  his  divine  nature  is  concerned,  and 
that  is  what  John  was  writing  about. — (1  Jno.  4 : 7- 
11.)  God  is  not  a  vindictive  being,  but  in  all  his 
actions  towards  men,  or  his  dealings  with  them, 
he  is  moved  by  the  principle  of  love.  "  'Our  God 
is  a  consuming  fire ;'  but  that  does  not  prove  that 
God  is  composed  of  fire."  No ;  not  in  a  literal 
sense  ;  but  the  context  shows  that  the  apostle  used 
a  strong  metaphor  to  teach  how  certainly  God  will 
destroy  all  that  is  impure,  or  unholy.— Heb.  12 : 25- 
29.)  Such  passages  as  these,  used  for  the  purpose 
of  killing  the  statement,  "God  is  a  Spirit,"  cer. 
tainly  fail  to  accomplish  that  which  is  intended. 
If  God  is  not  a  Spirit,  what  is  he  ?  If  he  is  only 
part  spirit,  what  is  the  other  part? 

Angels  are  a  very  high  order  of  intelligent 
beings— next  to  God— and  they  are  spir.ts,  one  class 
of  which,  at  least,  never  received  natural  bodies. 

Are  they  not  all  ministering  spirits,  sent  forth  to  min- 
ister for  them  who  shall  be  heirs  of  salvation.— Heb.  1:14. 

Dr.  Robert  Young,  in  his  "ANALYTICAL  CON- 
CORDANCE," under  the  head  of  "Hints  and  Helps 


ANGELS.  85 

to  Bible  Interpretation,"  has  this  to  say  of  the 
word  "angel." 

Is  used  of  a  messenger  (good  or  bad)  from  heaven  or  of 
men,  and  applied  to  spiritual  intelligences,  to  the  pillar  of 
cloud  and  fire,  to  the  (pestilential)  winds,  to  priests,  proph- 
ets, ministers,  disembodied  spirits. 

The  wide  application  of  this  term  is  no  excep- 
tion to  many  others.  It  serves  to  show  how  far 
we  sometimes  get  away  from  the  primary  or  lit- 
eral meaning  of  a  word  ;  and  at  other  times  how 
far  we  can  go  and  yet  be  in  harmony  with  the  lit- 
eral definition.  Angel  comes  from  the  Hebrew 
abbir  which  literally  means  "mighty;"  but  from 
the  Greek  anggelos  which  literally  means  "messen- 
ger, agent." 

The  information  furnished  by  the  Bible,  con- 
cerning angels  is  not  vast ;  but  it  seems  that  in 
the  beginning  (whenever  that  may  have  been) 
they  were  all  pure— were  indeed  the  angels  of 
God.  It  is  quite  evident  that  God  never  created 
any  devils,  or  demons ;  but  by  rebellion  against 
God,  beings  who  were  once  holy,  fell  from  their 
exalted  station  and  became  "the  Devil  and  his 
angels."  As  to  the  personality  of  the  Devil  and 
his  angels,  it  is  clearly  set  forth  in  the  Scriptures. 
Peter  and  Jude  both  inform  us  of  the  rebellion  and 
consequent  fall  of  those  who  were  once  the  com- 
panions of  God  and  the  inmates  of  Heaven. 

For  if  God  spared  not  the  angels  that  sinned,  but  cast 
them  down  to  hell,  and  delivered  them  into  chains  of  dark- 
ness to  be  reserved  unto  judgment.— 2  Peter  2:4. 

And  the  angels  which  kept  not  their  first  estate,  but 
left  their  own  habitation,  he  hath  reserved  in  everlasting 
chains  under  darkness.— Jude  6. 

Head  also  Eev.  12 : 7,  8,  9.  The  New  Testa- 
ment repeatedly  speaks  of  a  class  of  beings  called 
"devils"  or  "unclean  spirits."  These  spirits,  in 
many  cases,  took  actual  possession  of  the  bodies 
of  men  and  women  and  were  cast  out  by  the  power 
of  God.  Read  carefully  the  following  passages : 


86  SPIRIT  ENTITIES. 

When  the  even  was  come,  they  brought  unto  him  many 
that  were  possessed  with  devils;  andhecast  out  the  spirits 
with  his  word,  and  healed  all  that  were  sick;— Matt.  8:16. 

And  when  he  had  called  unto  him  twelve  disciples,  he 
gave  them  power  against  unclean  spirits,  to  cast  them  out, 
and  to  heal  all  manner  of  sickness,  and  all  manner  of  dis- 
ease.—Matt.  10:1. 

And  if  I  by  Beelzebub  cast  out  devils,  by  whom  do  your 
children  cast  them  out?  therefore  they  shall  be  your 
judges.  But  if  I  cast  out  devils  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  then 
the  kingdom  of  God  is  come  unto  you.— Matt.  12:27,  28. 

When  the  unclean  spirit  is  gone  out  of  a  man,  he  walk- 
eth  through  dry  places,  seeking  rest,  and  findeth  none. 
Then  he  saith,  I  will  return  into  my  house  from  whence  I 
came  out;  and  when  he  is  come,  he  findeth  it  empty,  swept, 
and  garnished.  Then  goeth  he,  and  taketh  with  himself 
seven  other  spirits  more  wicked  than  himself,  and  they 
enter  in  and  dwell  there:  and  the  last  state  of  that  man  is 
worse  than  the  first.  Even  so  shall  it  be  also  unto  this 
wicked  generation.— Matt.  12:43-44. 

And  there  was  in  their  synagogue  a  man  with  an  un- 
clean spirit;  and  he  cried  out,  Saying,  Let  us  alone;  what 
have  we  to  do  with  thee,  thou  Jesus  of  Nazareth  ?  art  thou 
come  to  destroy  us  ?  I  know  thee  who  thou  art,  the  Holy 
One  of  God.  And  Jesus  rebuked  him,  saying,  Hold  thy 
peace,  and  come  out  of  him,  And  when  the  unclean  spirit 
had  torn  him,  and  cried  with  a  loud  voice,  he  came  out  of 
hiiii.-Mark  1:23-26. 

And  when  he  was  come  out  of  the  ship,  immediately 
there  met  him  out  of  the  tombs,  a  man  with  an  unclean 
spirit.  Who  had  his  dwelling  among  the  tombs;  and  no 
man  could  bind  him,  no,  not  with  chains;  Because  that  he 
had  been  often  bound  with  fetters  and  chains,  and  the 
chains  had  been  plucked  asunder  by  him,  and  the  fetters 
broken  in  pieces;  neither  could  any  man  tame  him.  And 
always,  night  and  day,  he  was  in  the  mountains,  and  in  the 
tombs,  crying,  and  cutting  himself  with  stones.  But  when 
he  saw  Jesus  afar  off,  he  ran  and  worshipped  him,  And 
cried  with  a  loud  voice,  and  said,  What  have  I  to  do  with 
thee,  Jesus,  thou  Son  of  the  Most  High  God  ?  I  adjure  thee 
by  God,  that  thou  torment  me  not.  (For  he  said  unto  him, 
Come  out  of  the  man,  thou  unclean  spirit.)  And  he  asked 
him,  What  is  thy  name?  And  he  answered,  saying,  my 
name  is  Legion:  for  we  are  many.  And  he  besought  him 
much  that  he  would  not  send  them  away  out  of  the  coun- 
try. Now  there  was  there  nigh  unto  the  mountains  a  great 
herd  of  swine  feeding.  And  all  the  devils  besought  him, 


SPIRIT  ENTITY  A  FACT.  87 

saying,  Send  us  into  the  swine,  that  we  may  enter  into 
them.— Mark  5:2-12. 

If  the  above  passages  do  not  show  that  these 
evil  spirits  went  into  persons,  and  while  there 
talked  with  Jesus,  and  when  commanded  by  him 
literally  came  out,  then  we  cannot  rely  upon  the 
plainest  statements  of  New  Testament  history. 
It  would  hardly  do  for  those  who  ask  us  to  receive, 
in  an  unmodified  sense,  the  highly  poetical  state- 
ments of  Job  and  David,  as  proof  for  unconscious- 
ness after  death,  to  so  construe  plain  statements 
of  New  Testament  history  as  to  make  them  mean 
something  entirely  different  from  what  the  word- 
ing conveys. 

The  lesson  herein  presented  is  this :  Spirit 
entity  is  a  fact.  A  spirit  entity  may  take  posses- 
sion of  the  human  body.  It  lives  in  a  conscious 
state  whether  "in  the  body  or  out  of  the  body." 
If  good  spirits,  that  have  never  fallen,  do  not  thus 
take  possession  of  men,  it  is  evidently  not  be- 
cause they  can  not,  but  because  it  is  not  God's 
way,  and  they  work  in  harmony  with  the  will  of 
God.  It  will  hardly  do  to  say  that  the  angels  that 
"kept  their  first  estate"  have  less  power  than 
those  who  did  not.  All  spirits  must  act  in  har- 
mony with  laws  which  govern  spirit,  just  as  all 
bodies  must  act  in  harmony  with  the  laws  which 
govern  matter. 

Here  is  the  application.  In  the  light  of  the 
above  lesson,  it  is  not  impossible,  unreasonable, 
nor  contrary  to  the  teachings  of  the  Scriptures, 
that  an  intelligent  spirit  entity  should  take  up  its 
abode  with  each  person,  leave  him  at  death  and 
go  to  God ;  and  by  Him  who  knows  just  where  it 
should  go,  be  placed  where  it  properly  belongs 
until  the  time  of  the  resurrection  and  judgment. 

But  objections  are  urged.  "How  could  seven 
devils  have  lived  in  the  body  of  Mary  Magdalene, 
at  one  time?"  Suppose  we  cannot  tell.  Must 


88  THE  APOSTLES'  BELIEF. 

Bible  facts  and  truths  be  thrown  away  because  of 
that  which  we  can  not  understand  ?  Such  a  course 
would  destroy  belief  in  both  the  natural  and  super- 
natural. However,  the  Bible  does  not  affirm  what 
is  questioned.  The  statements  are,  "out  of  whom 
he  had  cast  seven  devils."— Mark  16  : 9,  and,  "Out 
of  whom  went  seven  devils.'1— Luke  8:2.  They 
may  have  taken  possession  one  at  a  time,  and  gone 
out  one  at  a  time,  so  far  as  these  statements  are 
concerned. 

"But  what  about  the  man  of  the  tombs  in 
whom  there  was  a  legion  of  devils?" 

If  the  Bible  says  there  was  a  legion  of  devils 
dwelt  in  this  man,  we  are  not  at  liberty  to  deny 
it ;  but  we  are  no  more  under  obligations  to  apolo- 
gize for  the  statements  of  the  Bible,  than  are  mor- 
tal-soulists  who,  with  us,  profess  to  accept  that 
book  as  a  proper  standard  of  evidence. 

The  apostles  believed  in  spirits. 

And  when  the  disciples  saw  him  walking  on  the  sea, 
they  were  troubled,  saying,  It  is  a  spirit;  and  they  cried 
out  for  fear.— Matt.  14:26. 

But  when  they  saw  him  walking  upon  the  sea,  they  sup- 
posed it  had  been  a  spirit  and  cried  out.— Mark  6:49. 

And  as  they  thus  spake,  Jesus  himself  stood  in  the 
midst  of  them,  and  saith  unto  them,  Peace  be  unto  you. 
But  they  were  terrified  and  affrighted,  and  supposed  that 
they  had  seen  a  spirit.  And  he  said  unto  them,  Why  are 
ye  troubled?  and  why  do  thoughts  arise  in  your  hearts? 
Behold  my  hands  and  my  feet  that  it  is  I  myself:  handle 
me,  and  see;  for  a  spirit  hath  not  flesh  and  bones,  as  ye  see 
me  have.— Luke  24:36-39. 

The  first  two  passages  describe  the  same 
event;  and  the  word  "spirit,"  found  in  them, 
comes — not  from  pneuma,  but  from  phantasma, 
which  literally  means  "phantasm,  apparition." 
From  the  supposed  meaning  of  phantasma,  our  op- 
ponents have  found  an  easy  way  of  running  over 
these  passages.  Listen  to  Mr.  Grant.  "THE 
SPIRIT  IN  MA:N,"  p.  2. 


GRANT'S  VIEW  EXAMINED.  89 

At  one  time  the  disciples  saw  Jesus  walking  on  the  sea, 
and  they  were  troubled,  saying  "it  is  a  (phantasma)  spir- 
it." A  phantom  has  the  appearance  of  reality;  but  like  a 
shadow,  is  nothing  real  or  tangible.  When  a  thing  appears 
to  be  where  it  is  not,  or  a  shadow  like  a  reality;  it  may 
properly  be  called  a  phantom. 

Mr,  Grant's  exegesis  is  now  before  us.  Let  us 
look  at  it.  You  know  they  accuse  us  of  being 
narrow  and  unfair.  Mr.  Grant  confines  himself 
to  one  part  of  the  literal  definition  of  phantasma, 
and  on  that  one  word  alone  (phantom)  he  makes 
his  argument ;  or,  more  properly,  offers  his  asser- 
tions gratis. 

"A  phantom,"  he  says,  "is  nothing  real  or  tan- 
gible." It  is  "like  a  shadow."  It  is,  in  fact,  the 
"appearance"  of  something,  which  is  nothing. 
Now,  notice,  the  question  is  not  what  the  apos- 
tles saw,  for  we  all  know  they  saw  Jesus;  but 
what  did  they  think  they  saw  ?  Mr.  Grant  tells  us. 
Then  we  must  understand  it  in  this  way.  The 
apostles,  or  disciples,  when  they  saw  Jesus  walk- 
ing on  the  sea,  were  troubled,  because  they  all  saw 
him,  and  supposed  him  to  be  a  shadow,  or  the  ap- 
pearance of  something  which,  in  reality,  is  noth- 
ing ;  so  they  all  cried  out  for  fear !" 

There  is  no  "catch  logic"  in  this.  The  disci- 
ples thought  Jesus  to  be  a  pha>  lasma.  Did  they 
think  a, phantasma  was  a  real,  conscious  being,  or 
something  that  is  not  real  ?  If  the  latter,  why 
were  they  troubled  ?  and  why  did  they  cry  out  for 
fear  and  be  troubled  over  nothing? 

Mr.  Grant  selects  phantom  (which  is  a  corrup- 
tion from  the  Latin  phantasma)  but  ignores  "appa- 
rition" altogether.  Webster  defines  phantom  as 
follows : 

1.  Something  that  appears;  an  apparition;  a  specter. 
2.  A  fancied  vision. 

Specter  comes  from  "specto,  to  behold,"  and  is  defined  as 
follows:  1.  An  apparition;  the  appearance  of  a  person 
who  is  dead;  a  ghost.  2.  Something  made  preternaturally 
visible. 


90  CHRIST'S  EXPLANATION. 

It  will  be  seen  that  Mr.  Grant  ignores  the  pri- 
mary definition  of  his  own  word,  thus  going  clear 
back  on  his  own  stated  position,  in  order,  it  would 
seem,  to  make  a  point ! 

The  Revised  Version  renders  the  word  spirit, 
found  in  Mark  6  and  Matthew  14,  "apparition," 
which,  according  to  Dr.  Young,  with  "phantasm," 
constitutes  the  literal,  or  root  meaning  of  the 
Greek  phantasma.  Webster  gives  five  definitions  to 
apparition,  four  of  which  are  against  Mr.  Grant 
and  one  in  his  favor ! 

The  Syriac,  one  of  Mr.  Grant's  own  witnesses, 
has  * 'spectre"  instead  of  spirit.  It  renders  Mark 
6 : 49,  with  a  part  of  verse  50,  as  follows  : 

And  they  saw  him  walking  on  the  waters,  and  they  sup- 
posed that  the  appearance  was  a  specter:  And  they  cried 
out:  For  all  saw  him,  and  were  afraid. 

The  ingenious  efforts  of  Mr.  Grant  to  slip  over 
these  passages,  show  in  what  manner  some  men 
seek  to  make  everything  conform  to  an  assumed 
position ;  and  how  impossible  it  seems  for 
them  to  treat,  in  a  broad  and  independent 
way,  that  which  might  testify  against  them. 
And  thus  it  is  that  many  credulous,  but  honest, 
converts  are  often  made  to  the  "doctrines  of 
men." 

In  the  third  passage,  spirit  comes  from  pneuma 
—the  same  word  that  is  applied  to  God  and  the 
angels.  Jesus  suddenly  appeared  in  the  midst  of 
the  disciples,  and  spake  to  them.  "But  they  were 
terrified  and  affrighted,  and  supposed  that  they 
had  seen  a  spirit."  Jesus  at  once  proceeds  to  cor- 
rect their  false  impressions  by  instituting  a  com- 
parison between  himself  and  a  spirit.  He  does 
not  tell  them  that  they  are  wrong  in  supposing 
that  there  is  such  a  thing  as  a  spirit ;  nor  does  he 
tell  them  that  if  there  are  spirits,  they  cannot, 
under  any  conditions  or  circumstances,  be  seen. 
What  he  does  seek  to  do  is  to  convince  them,  at 


SPIRIT  AND  BREATH.  91 

once,  that  he  is  Jesus  and  not  a  spirit.  "Handle 
me,  and  see ;  for  a  spirit  hath  not  flesh  and  bones, 
as  ye  see  me  have." 

Would  Jesus  institute  a  plain  comparison 
between  himself  and  something  which  did  not 
exist?  "Would  he  tell  them  that  "a  spirit  hath 
not  flesh  and  hones,"  if  there  was  no  such  thing  as 
a  spirit  without  flesh  and  bones  ?  If  the  disciples 
were  wrong  in  their  settled  belief  in  spirits,  why 
is  it  that  Jesus  did  not  seek  to  remove  the  super- 
stition? He  did  not  do  it,  not  even  by  implica- 
tion ;  but  the  whole  tenor  of  his  speech  is  of  such 
a  character  as  to  have  strengthened  and  confirmed 
such  belief. 

The  time  was  near  at  hand  when  the  disciples 
were  to  be  sent  "into  all  the  world."  It  was  im- 
portant that  they  should  teach  the  doctrine  of 
Christ  correctly.  This  belief  in  immortal  spirits, 
without  ''flesh  and  bones,"  we  are  told  by  the 
authors  of  the  C.  A.  church,  is  a  very  dangerous 
one,  and  lies  at  the  very  root  of  all  religious  error 
And  yet,  in  all  the  testimonies  presented,  we  have 
not  one  word  in  condemnation  of  the  belief! 

We  know  of  but  one  means  of  escape  now,  and 
that  is,  that  Jesus  meant  by  "spirit,"  as  referred 
to  in  the  last  passage  quoted,  "atmosphere,"  "the 
air  we  breathe,"  or  something  "akin  to  electric- 
ity." But  this  will  hardly  do,  for  they  saw  Jesus, 
heard  him  speak,  and  thought  he  was  a  spirit. 
Again:  It  was  certainly  not  "a  atmosphere" 
which  Jesus  said  had  not  "flesh  and  bones,"  but  a 
conscious  entity.  Nor  would  it  do  to  say  "a  fluid," 
for  the  plural  would  be  fluids,  which  would  denote 
that  different  kinds  of  fluids  constitute  "the 
breath  of  life"  which  God  formed  within  man. 
Surely,  it  is  a  dangerous  thing  to  get  so  far  away 
from  what  is  plainly  stated  and  indicated  in  the 
word. 


92  WHAT  IS  DEATH. 

We  are  now  prepared  to  consider  death.  What 
is  it?  Our  opponents  say,  "an  extinction  of  con- 
scious being."  We  say,  separation,  departure, 
ehange  of  conditions  and  manner  of  life.  Which 
is  right? 

Death,  either  in  the  Bible  or  out  of  it,  does 
not  necessarily  denote  unconsciousness.  Fowler 
and  Wells,  in  a  little  work  entitled,  "THE  RIGHT 
WORD  IN  THE  RIGHT  PLACE,"  under  the  head  of 
"Synonyms,"  give  the  following :  "Death— decease, 
demise,  departure." 

Crabb's  "ENGLISH  SYNONYMS"  is  in  harmony 
with  Fowler  and  Wells,  but  more  complete. 

We  understand  the  Bible  to  teach  that  we  are 
dead  to  God  when  separated  from  him  ;  dead  to 
righteousness  when  separated  from  righteousness; 
dead  to  sin  when  separated  from  sin.  So,  then, 
when  we  depart  from  the  sins  of  the  world,  we 
die,  but  do  not  become  unconscious;  when  we 
depart  from  God  and  his  truth,  we  die,  but  con- 
scious being  still  remains.  A  few  passages  from 
the  New  Testament  will  be  sufficient  to  show  that 
the  above  declarations  are  in  harmony  therewith. 

Being  then  made  free  from  sin,  ye  became  the  servants 
of  righteousness.  For  when  ye  were  the  servants  of  sin,  ye 
were  free  from  righteousness.— Rom.  6:18,  20. 

And  you  hath  he  quickned,  who  were  dead  in  tress- 
passes  and  sins:  Wherein  in  time  past  ye  walked  accord- 
ing to  the  course  of  this  world,  according  to  the  prince  of 
the  power  of  the  air,  the  spirit  that  now  worketh  in  the 
children  of  disobedience:  Among  whom  also  we  all  had 
our  conversation  in  times  past  in  the  lusts  of  our  flesh, 
fulfilling  the  desires  of  the  flesh  and  of  the  mind;  and 
were  by  nature  the  children  of  wrath,  even  as  others.  But 
God,  who  is  rich  in  mercy,  for  his  great  love  wherewith  he 
loved  us.  Even  when  we  were  dead  in  sins,  hath  quickened 
us  together  with  Christ;  (by  grace  ye  are  saved;)  And  hath 
raised  us  up  together,  and  made  us  sit  together  in  heavenly 
places,  in  Christ  Jesus.— Eph.  2:1-6. 

For  to  be  carnally  minded  is  death;  but  to  be  spirit- 
ually minded  is  life  and  peace;  Because  the  carnal  mind  is 
enmity  against  God;  for  it  is  not  subject  to  the  law  of  God, 
neither  indeed  can  be.— Romans  8:6,  7. 


NATURAL  AND  SPIRITUAL  DEATH.  93 

Natural  death  is  a  separation  of  body  and 
spirit,  or  the  "departure"  of  the  Spirit  from  the 
body,  to  live  under  conditions  and  laws  which 
govern  the  "inner  man"  when  "unclothed,"  or  out 
of  our  "earthly  house,"  in  which  Paul  says,  "we 
do  groan."  etc. 

But  our  opponents  say  that  the  first  kind  of 
death  we  have  introduced  is  "spiritual  death," 
and  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  literal  death  of 
man.  To  this  we  reply,  that  while  we  do  not 
object  to  the  phrases  "spiritual  death,"  and  nat- 
ural or  literal  death,  they  simply  denote  different 
conditions  of  that  which,  in  all  general  respects, 
is  but  one.  It  would  be  as  difficult  for  mortal- 
soul  ists  to  find  these  distinctive  pli rases  in 
the  Bible,  as  it  would  be  for  imrnortal-soul- 
ists  to  find  "immortal  soul,"  or  "never  dying 
soul."  In  the  Bible  death  is  death  and  life  is 
/i/e;  and  inasmuch  as  both  conditions  obtain  with 
those  who  remain  conscious  and  active,  what 
right  have  we  to  say  that  any  form  of  death,  as 
applied  to  man,  is  an  end  to  conscious  being? 

Paul  refers  to  his  own  prospective  death  as  a 

"departure." 

For  I  am  now  ready  to  be  offered,  and  the  time  of  my 
departure  is  at  hand.— 2  Tim.  4:6. 

For  I  am  in  a  strait  betwixt  two,  having  a  desire  to  de- 
part, and  to  be  with  Christ;  which  is  far  better;  Neverthe- 
less to  abide  in  the  flesh  is  more  needful  for  you.— Phil.  1: 
23,  24. 

Therefore  we  are  always  confident,  knowing  that, 
whilst  we  are  at  home  in  the  body,  we  are  absent  from  the 
Lord:  (For  we  walk  by  faith,  not  by  sight:)  We  are  confi- 
dent. I  say,  and  willing  rather  to  be  absent  from  the  body, 
and  to  be  present  with  the  Lord.— 2  Cor.  5:6,  7,  8. 

In  Genesis  35  :18,  we  read  that  when  Each  el 
died  her  soul  departed  ;  and  in  1  Kings  17  :21,  22, 
when  the  widow's  son  was  raised,  "his  soul  carne 
into  him  again ;"  hence  when  he  died,  his  soul  left 
him,  or  departed.  In  all  these  passages  death  is 
represented  as  a  departure. 


94  BODY  AND  SPIRIT. 

For  as  the  body  without  the  spirit  is  dead,  so  faith 
w'.thout  works  is  dead  also.— Jas.  2:26. 

Our  opponents  refer  us  to  the  marginal  ren- 
dering of  this,  where  we  have  "breath"  instead  of 
"spirit."  But  in  the  Revised  Version,  which  is 
the  work  of  able  and  scholarly  men,  who  were  in 
possession  of  other  and  earlier  copies  of  the  origi- 
nals than  were  had  in  the  times  of  King  James,  it 
is  rendered  "spirit"  and  no  marginal  rendering  is 
given. 

For  as  the  body  apart  from  the  spirit  is  dead,  even  so 
faith  without  works  is  dead. 

The  Geneva  and  Syriac  Versions  both  render 
it  spirit  without  any  marginal  translation. 

Let  James  himself  tell  us  what  he  means  by 
the  "spirit  in  man."  Jas.  4 : 5.  "Do  ye  think  that 
the  Scripture  saith  in  vain,  The  spirit  that 
dwelleth  in  us  lusteth  to  envy?"  Or  as  the  Re- 
vised has  it,  "The  spirit  which  he  made  to  dwell 
in  us,"  etc.  This  shows  that  James  referred  to  a 
conscious  entity  within;  and  when  this  spirit 
leaves,  the  body  is  dead. 

In  Matt.  10:28,  with  Luke  12:4,  5,  it  is  dis- 
tinctly stated  that  man  can  "kill  the  body,"  but 
"after  that  has  no  more  that  he  can  do."  Or,  as 
Matthew  puts  it,  they  "are  not  able  to  kill  the 
soul."  How  far  does  man's  power  extend  when 
pouring  out  his  wrath  upon  his  fellow  man?  He 
can  kill  the  body.  What  does  this  killing  of  the 
body  cause?  A  separation  of  body  and  soul. 
What  do  we  call  this  separation  ?  Death. 

There  is  no  man  that  hath  power  over  the  spirit  to 
retain  the  spirit:  neither  hath  he  power  in  the  day  of 
death;  and  there  is  no  discharge  in  that  war;  neither  shall 
wickedness  deliver  those  that  are  given  to  it.— Eccles.  8:8. 

In  this  passage,  Solomon  evidently  refers  to 
death.  No  man  hath  power  to  "retain  the  spirit," 
nor  can  he  defer,  or  choose,  the  time  of  his  depart- 
ure. Revised  Version,  latter  part  of  verse: 
"Neither  hath  he  power  over  the  day  of  death." 


STEPHEN'S  PRAYER.  95 

Stephen  prayed,  at  the  time  of  his  death, 
"Lord  Jesus,  receive  my  spirit."  We  do  not  be- 
lieve that  Stephen  referred  to  corrupted  air,  but 
to  the  conscious  entity  within. 

In  Ecclesiastes  twelfth  chapter,  we  have  the 
concluding  words  of  the  preacher.  He  does  not 
tell  us  now  what  he  said  in  his  heart,  (chap.  3 : 18) 
but  seems  to  speak  with  assurance  concerning  the 
duty  of  man  and  the  truth  of  God.  Among  other 
things,  he  gives  us  a  plain  statement  of  the  nature 
of  death. 

Then  shall  the  dust  return  to  the  earth  as  it  was;    and 
the  spirit  shall  return  unto  God  who  gave  it.— Eccles.  12:7. 

These  statements,  and  our  position  concern- 
ing death,  will  be  emphasized  in  our  next  chapter 
when  we  come  to  treat  on  the  death  of  Christ. 
"All  truths  harmonize"  says  Mr.  Grant,  and  we  are 
glad  he  has  made  the  statement. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

CHRIST  THE  TRUE  SOURCE  OF  LIGHT  AND  KNOWL- 
EDGE-THE  MAN  CHRIST  JESUS,  THE  TRUE  TYPE 
OF  ALL  OTHER  MEN  IN  LIFE  AND  DEATH— HIS 
PRE-EXISTENCE,  LIFE  AND  DEATH  CONSIDERED. 

There  is  certainly  no  better  source  to  which  the 
children  of  God  can  go  for  light  and  truth,  than  to 
Christ.  This  is  true  in  the  grandest  and  broadest 
sense.  To  Him  we  go  as  the  most  perfect  teacher 
God  ever  had  among  men,  in  fact,  the  only  abso- 
lutely perfect  one.  (Deu.  18 : 18,  19.)  To  Him  we 
go,  and  to  Him  only,  for  a  perfect  example.  (1 
Peter  2:21-23.)  To  Him  we  go  for  knowledge  of 
our  nature  and  destiny.  In  the  Bible  we  read  of 
Christ  prophetically  and  historically.  He  dwelt 
in  glory  with  the  Father  before  the  world  was 
made.  By  him,  through  him  and  for  him,  were  all 
things  made.  He  was  called  Jehovah,  God,  and 
other  divine  appellations.  He  is  indeed  one  of  the 


96  CHRIST  THE  LIGHT  OF  MEN. 

Godhead.  He  was,  is,  and  ever  will  be,  "the  light 
of  men."  When  the  set  time  had  come,  he  ap- 
peared in  the  flesh,  taking  upon  him  all  the  pecu- 
liarities of  our  nature.  While  clothed  upon  with 
mortality,  he  is  most  appropriately  denominated 
the  "Son  of  man ;"  "a  man  of  sorrows  and  acquain- 
ted, with  grief;"  (Isa.  53:3.)  "the  man  Christ 
Jesus,"  and  "man."  (1  Cor.  15:21,22.)  As  man, 
he  lived,  suffered  and  died  in  the  flesh.  He  was, 
therefore,  the  true  type  of  life  and  death  as 
applied  to  all  other  men.  When  we  have  found 
in  what  the  life  and  death  of  Christ  consisted— 
the  man  Christ  Jesus— we  have  found  what  life 
and  death  are  as  applied  to  the  human  family. 

Our  opponents  are  not  at  all  pleased  when  we 
present  Christ,  in  his  life  and  death,  as  a  type  of 
other  men.  They  make  an  attempt  to  convince 
the  people  that  this  has  nothing  to  do  with  the 
nature  and  destiny  of  man  ;  and,  when  failing  in 
their  apparent  purpose  to  prevent  us  from  bring- 
ing this  feature  of  the  question  into  prominence, 
they  play  upon  the  account  of  Christ's  death,  as 
though  we  were  inclined  to  deny  it.  "Did  not 
Christ  die  ?  Will  our  opponents  dare  to  deny  that 
he  died  ?"  No,  they  will  not  deny  it.  We  are  not 
aware  that  they  have  ever  been  so  inclined ;  but 
from  his  death  they  are  better  able  to  answer  the 
important  question,  What  is  death  ?  and  from  his 
life,  that  other  important  question,  What  is  life? 
Let  us  then,  so  far  as  our  space  will  permit,  give 
prayerful  and  careful  attention  to  the  pre-exist- 
ence,  life  and  death  of  the  "man  of  sorrows." 

We  have  been  informed  that  one  class  of 
Adventists  believe  in  the  pre-existence  of  Christ 
as  a  sentient  being.  All  the  better.  They  will 
not  need  all  our  proof,  and  it  is  certainly  to  their 
credit  to  so  believe.  However,  the  ministers  of 
the  C.  A.  Church,  with  whom  we  have  canvassed 


CHRIST'S  PREEXISTENCE.  97 

this  question,  deny  Christ's  preexistence,  in  the 
sense  in  which  we  believe  the  Bible  plainly  teaches 
it.  Let  us  attend  to  the  proof. 

And  God  said,  Let  us  make  man  in  our  image,  after  our 
likeness;  and  let  them  have  dominion  over  the  fish  of  the 
sea,  and  over  the  foul  of  the  air,  and  over  the  cattle,  and 
over  all  the  earth,  and  over  every  creeping  thing  that 
creepeth  upon  the  earth.— Gen.  1:26. 

The  pronouns  "us"  and  "our"  are  in  the  plu- 
ral. Who  was  this  second  personage?  Evidently 
the  one  by  whom  all  things  were  created. 

For  by  him  were  all  things  created,  that  are  in  heaven, 
and  that  are  in  earth,  visible  and  invisible,  whether  they 
be  thrones,  or  dominions,  or  principalities,  or  powers;  all 
things  were  created  by  him  and  for  him;  And  he  is  before 
all  things,  and  by  him  all  things  consist.— Col.  1:16, 17. 

He  was  in  the  world,  and  the  world  was  made  by  him, 
and  the  world  knew  him  not.— Jno.  1:10. 

God,  who  at  sundry  times  and  in  divers  manners  spake 
in  time  past  unto  the  fathers  by  the  prophets,  Hath  in 
these  last  days  spoken  unto  us  by  his  Son,  whom  he  hath 
appointed  heir  of  all  things,  by  whom  also  he  made  the 
worlds;  Who  being  the  brightness  of  his  glory,  and  the 
express  image  of  his  person,  and  upholding  all  things  by 
the  word  of  his  power,  when  he  had  by  himself  purged  our 
sins,  sat  down  on  the  right  hand  of  the  Majesty  on  high; 
Being  made  so  much  better  than  the  angels,  as  he  hath  by 
inheritance  obtained  a  more  excellent  name  than  they. 
For  unto  which  of  the  angels  said  he  at  any  time,  Thou  art 
my  Son,  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee.  And  again,  I  will 
be  to  him  a  Father,  and  he  shall  be  to  me  a  Son?  And 
again,  when  he  bringeth  in  the  first-begotten  into  the 
world,  he  saith.  And  let  all  the  angels  of  God  worship  him. 
-Heb.  1:1-6. 

And  to  make  all  men  see  what  is  the  fellowship  of  the 
mystery,  which  from  the  beginning  of  the  world  hath  been 
hid  in  God.  who  created  all  things  by  Jesus  Christ.— Eph- 
3:9. 

From  the  above  testimony  we  learn  that  the 
Christ  of  the  New  Testament  is  the  one  by  whom 
all  things  were  created.  The  Son,  by  whom  God 
spoke  to  the  Saints,  was  the  very  one  "by  whom 
also  he  made  the  worlds." 


*8  THE  WORD. 

In  the  beginning  was  the  word,  and  the  word  was  with 
God.  and  the  word  was  God.  The  same  was  in  the  begin- 
ning with  God.  All  things  were  made  by  him;  and  without 
him  was  not  anything  made  that  was  made.  In  him  was 
life;  and  the  life  was  the  light  of  men.  And  the  Ight  shin- 
eth  in  darkness;  and  the  darkness  comprehendeth  it  not.— 
John  1:1-5. 

Some  claim  upon  the  authority  of  the  first 
verse  of  this  passage,  that  Christ  did  not  pre- 
exist as  a  conscious,  intelligent  being,  but  simply 
as  the  word  of  God.  To  this  we  reply,  that  Christ 
is  known  by  a  number  of  different  titles  in  the 
Bible,  one  of  which  is  the  "Word."  This  same 
chapter  shows  that  the  "Word"  denotes  the 
Christ  of  the  New  Testament,  to  whom  John,  the 
Baptist,  bore  witness.  Eead  from  the  sixth  to  the 
eighteenth  verse.  Also  from  the  twenty-ninth  to 
the  thirty-seventh.  Christ  was  just  as  much  the 
the  "Word"  after  he  came  in  the  flesh  as  he  was 
before.  He  said : 

I  am  the  way,  the  truth,  and  the  life:  no  man  cometh 
unto  the  Father,  but  by  me.— Jno.  14:6. 

To  assume  the  position  that  it  was  the 
"Word,"  without  intelligence  or  consciousness,  is 
to  contradict  some  of  the  plainest  statements  of 
Scripture.  When  Jesus  prayed  to  the  Father  just 
before  his  death— not  as  a  mere  suppliant,  but  as 
a  victor,  or  conqueror,  he  only  asked  to  be  restored 
to  the  condition  enjoyed,  with  the  Father,  before 
the  foundation  of  the  world. 

And  now,  O  Father,  glorify  thou  me  with  thine  own  self' 
with  the  glory  which  I  had  with  thee  before  the  world  \v«*s' 
—Jno.  17:5. 

But,  we  are  told,  "the  Word  was  made  flesh 
and  dwelt  among  us,"  etc.  Yes;  and  we  are  also 
told  "how  the  Word  was  made  flesh,"  all  of  which 
is  in  harmony  with  our  position. 

Wherefore,  when  he  cometh  into  the  world,  he  saith. 
Sacrifice  and  offering  thou  wouldst  not,  but  a  body  hast 
thou  prepared  me:  In  burnt  off erings  and  sacrifices  for 
sin  thou  hast  had  no  pleasure.  Then  said  I,  Lo,  I  come  (in 


JESUS  EXISTED  IN  THE  SPIRIT.  99 

the  volume  of  the  book  it  is  written  of  me)  to  do  thy  will,  O 
God.  Above,  when  he  said,  Sacrifice  and  offering  and  burnt- 
offerings  and  offering  for  sin  thou  wouldst  not,  neither  hadst 
pleasure  therein;  which  are  offered  by  the  law;  Then  said 
he.  Lo,  I  come  to  do  thy  will,  O  God.  He  taketh  away  the 
first,  that  he  may  establish  the  second.  By  the  which  will 
we  are  sanctified  through  the  offering  of  the  body  of  Jesus 
Christ  once  for  all.— Heb.  10:5-10. 

This  Scripture  is  very  plain.  Jesus  existed  in 
the  spirit  state,  as  an  immortal  and  glorified  be- 
ing, before  he  came  in  the  flesh.  "A  body  hast 
thou  prepared  me."  Ee vised  Version,  "A  body 
didst  thou  prepare  for  me."  "Burnt-offerings  and 
sacrifices  for  sin"  were  to  cease ;  but  this  same 
body  which  was  prepared  for  him,  was  offered 
"once  for  all." 

Eusebius  speaks  of  the  preexistence  and  divin- 
ity of  Christ  in  the  following  manner : 

No  language,  then,  is  sufficient  to  express  the  origin,  the 
dignity,  even  the  substance  and  nature  of  Christ.  Whence 
even  the  divine  Spirit  in  the  prophecies  says,  "Who  will  de- 
clare his  generation?"  For  as  no  one  hath  known  the  Father, 
but  the  Son,  so  no  one,  on  the  other  hand,  can  know  the  Son 
fully,  but  the  Father  alone,  by  whom  he  was  begotten.  For 
who  but  the  Father  hath  thoroughly  understood  that 
Light  which  existed  before  the  world  was— that  intellect- 
ual and  substantial  wisdom,  and  that  living  word  which 
in  the  beginning  was  with  the  Father,  before  all  creation 
and  any  production  visible  or  invisible,  the  first  and  only 
offspring  of  God,  the  prince  and  leader  of  the  spiritual 
immortal  host  of  heaven,  the  angel  of  the  mighty  council' 
the  agent  to  execute  the  Father's  secret  will,  the  maker  of 
all  things  with  the  Father,  the  second  cause  of  the  universe 
next  to  the  Father,  the  true  and  only  Son  of  the  Father, 
and  the  Lord  and  God  and  King  of  all  created  things,  who 
has  received  power  and  dominion  with  divinity  itself,  and 
power  and  honor  from  the  Father. 

Eusebius  proceeds  to  show  that  his  position  is 
in  harmony  with  scripture  which  we  have  already 
adduced  from  the  first  chapter  of  John's  gospelt 
and  from  Genesis  1 : 26.  He  then  proceeds  to  state 
that  Jesus,  the  Lord,  appeared  to  Moses,  Abra- 
ham and  Jacob,  emphasizing  his  claim  with  these 
words : 


100          CHRIST  WAS,  IS,  AND  EVER  WILL  BE. 

To  suppose  these  divine  appearances  the  forms  of  sub- 
ordinate angels  and  servants  of  God,  is  inadmissable; 
since  as  often  as  any  of  these  appeared  to  men,  the  Scrip- 
tures do  not  conceal  the  fact  in  the  name,  expressly  saying 
that  they  were  called,  not  God  nor  Lord,  but  angels,  as 
would  be  easy  to  prove  by  a  thousand  references. 

He  closes  on  this  topic  with  these  words : 

That  the  divine  word  therefore,  preexisted  and  ap- 
peared, if  not  to  all,  at  least  to  some,  has  been  thus  briefly 
shown.— "EusEBius'  ECCLESIASTICAL  HISTORY,"  chapter  2. 
Jesus  when  speaking  to  the  Jews  affirmed  his 
preexistence  as  plainly  as  it  could  be  done. 

Your  father  Abraham  rejoiced  to  see  my  day:  and  he 
saw  it,  and  was  glad.  Then  said  the  Jews  unto  him,  Thou 
art  not  yet  fifty  years  old,  and  hast  thou  seen  Abraham? 
Jesus  said  unto  them,  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  before 
Abraham  was  I  am.— Jno.  8:56-58. 

The  grand  and  cheering  truth  set  forth  in  the 
Scriptures,  is  that  Jesus  Christ  was,  is,  and  ever 
will  be,  the  Savior  of  men.  If  the  children  of  Is- 
rael could  "all  eat  the  same  spiritual  meat,"  and 
"drink  the  same  spiritual  drink"— which  drink  was 
Christ— before  there  was  any  Christ,  then  we  can 
eat  spiritual  meat  and  drink  spiritual  drink,  with- 
out any  Christ,  to-day ;  and  hence  no  Christ  is 
needed  !  But  it  will  evidently  be  somewhat  diffi- 
cult for  some  to  understand  how  we  can  partake 
of  Christ  when  there  is  no  Christ.  A  statement 
found  in  Heb.  13 : 8,  settles  the  question  effect- 
ually : 

Jesus  Christ,  the  same  yesterday,  and  today,  and  forever. 

That  is,  He  is  the  same  in  all  past,  present 
and  future  time,  in  all  that  pertains  unto  life  and 
salvation.  This  gives  to  the  plan  of  salvation  that 
breadth  and  perfection  which  we  reasonably  look 
for  in  the  work  of  the  divine  Being.  The  gospel 
is  for  all,  without  regard  to  time  or  location.  "It 
is  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation  unto  every  one 
that  believeth."  (Romans  1:16.)  Christ  is  the 
central  figure  of  the  gospel  and  without  him  there 
is  no  salvation.  (Acts  4:11,  12.)  The  justice, 


LIFE  OF  CHRIST.  101 

love  and  impartiality  of  God,  demand  that  Christ 
should  be  preached  "to  all  people,"  whether  dead 
or  alive.  Our  position  is  that  every  soul  must,  at 
some  time,  by  his  own  volition,  either  accept  or 
reject  the  truth. 

Having  fully  established  the  preexistence  of 
Christ,  we  proceed  at  once  to  consider  his  life. 
We  have  already  seen  that  he  was  brought  into 
the  world  by  receiving  a  body  which  had  been  pre- 
pared for  him.  (Heb.  10 : 5.)  That  he  lived,  suf- 
fered and  died,  in  the  flesh.  Christ  does  not  ask 
us  to  follow  where  he  has  not  been.  He  knows  by 
actual  experience  what  human  nature  is.  He 
was,  in  fact,  veiled  in  mortality,  hence  we  go  to 
him  to  find  out  the  real  nature  of  life  and  death. 

For  what  the  law  could  not  do,  in  that  it  was  weak 
through  the  flesh,  God  sending  his  own  Son  in  the  likeness 
of  sinful  flesh,  and  for  sin,  condemned  sin  in  the  flesh. — Horn. 
8:3. 

But  made  himself  of  no  reputation,  and  took  upon  him 
the  form  of  a  servant,  and  was  made  in  the  likeness  of 
men:  And  being  found  in  fashion  as  a  man,  he  humbled 
himself,  and  became  obedient  unto  death,  even  the  death 
of  the  cross.— Phil.  2:7,  8. 

In  the  light  of  such  Scriptures  as  these,  it  is 
not  difficult  to  see  why  Christ,  in  his  humiliation, 
was  called  "man,"  and  the  "Son  of  man."  He  is 
called  man  by  the  prophet  Isaiah  and  the  apostle 
Paul.  (Isa.  53 : 3 ;  1  Cor.  15 : 21,  22. )  He  is  referred 
to  as  the  Son  of  man  about  twenty-six  times  in  the 
book  of  Matthew.  But  the  author  of  the  epistle 
to  the  Hebrews  brings  this  matter  more  fully  be- 
fore us,  leaving  no  room  for  doubt. 

But  we  see  Jesus,  who  was  made  a  little  lower  than 
the  angels  for  the  suffering  of  death,  crowned  with  glory 
and  honor;  that  he  by  the  grace  of  God  should  taste  death 
for  every  man.  For  it  became  him,  for  whom  are  all  things, 
and  by  whom  are  all  things,  in  bringing  many  sons  unto 
glory,  to  make  the  Captain  of  their  salvation  perfect 
through  sufferings.  For  both  he  that  sanctifieth,  and  they 
who  are  sanctified,  are  all  of  one;  for  which  cause  he  is  not 


102  HIS  LIFE  LIKE  OUR  LIFE. 

ashamed  to  call  them  brethren.  Saying  I  will  declare  thy 
name  unto  my  brethren,  in  the  midst  of  the  church  will  I 
sing  praise  unto  thee.  And  again,  I  will  put  my  trust  in 
him.  And  again,  Behold  I,  and  the  children  which  God 
hath  given  me.  Forasmuch  then  as  the  children  are  par- 
takers of  flesh  and  blood,  he  also  himself  likewise  took 
part  of  the  same;  that  through  death  he  might  destroy  him 
that  had  the  power  of  death,  that  is,  the  devil.  And  deliv- 
er them  who  through  fear  of  death  were  all  their  lifetime 
subject  to  bondage.  For  verily  he  took  not  on  him  the 
nature  of  angels;  but  he  took  on  him  the  seed  of  Abraham. 
Wherefore  in  all  things  it  behooved  him  to  be  made  like 
unto  his  brethren,  that  he  might  be  a  merciful  and  faith- 
ful high  priest  in  things  pertaining  to  God,  to  make  recon- 
ciliation for  the  sins  of  the  people.  For  in  that  he  himself 
hath  suffered  being  tempted,  he  is  able  to  succour  them 
that  are  tempted.— Heb.  2:9-18. 

The  apostle  (supposing  the  author  to  be  Paul) 
gives  two  important  reasons  why  it  was  necessary 
that  Jesus  should  lay  aside  his  glory  and  become 
as  man.  First,  "That  through  death  he  might 
destroy  him  that  had  the  power  of  death,  that  is 
the  devil ;"  and  second,  that  by  actual  contact 
with  the  flesh,  the  world  and  the  devil,  the  same 
contact  which  we  experience,  he  (Christ)  should 
become  fully  qualified  to  act  as  the  great  High 
Priest  of  God,  and  the  mediator  between  God  and 
men.  Therefore,  as  the  children  are  made  "partak- 
ers of  flesh  and  blood,  he  also  himself  likewise"  (in 
like  manner,  also,  morever,  too.— Webster.)  "took 
part  of  the  same."  This  not  only  enables  us  to 
have  perfect  faith,  but  it  is  such  an  exhibition  of 
divine  love  as  touches  and  moves  the  noblest  and 
most  potent  qualities  of  the  soul. 

We  find,  then,  that  the  life  of  Jesus  was 
like  our  life;  and  as  he  preexisted  as  a 
conscious,  intelligent  being,  his  life  was  the 
union  of  body  and  spirit.  If  it  can  be  shown  that, 
while  in  the  flesh,  the  spirit  of  Christ  was  the  con- 
scious intelligent  part  of  him,  it  will  still  further 
confirm  our  position. 

Jesus  perceived  in  his  spirit.— Mark  1:8 


THE  SPIRIT  OF  CHRIST.  103 

And  he  sighed  deeply  in  his  spirit.— Mark  8:12. 

Mr.  Grant  says,  after  quoting  this  last  pass- 
age, that  "sighing  is  the  result  of  a  peculiar  kind 
of  breathing.  The  Syriac  Version  reads :  He  sighed 
with  his  breath.  This  is  the  true  idea :  we  know 
of  no  other  way  to  sigh."  See,  now,  what  a  nar- 
row and  superficial  view  is  expressed  to  make  this 
scripture  harmonize  with  an  assumed  position. 
Mr.  Grant  refers  to  the  sighing  done  by  Jesus  as 
though  it  were  only  a  physical  action  like  coughing 
or  sneezing.  He  might,  with  the  same  propriety 
quote  to  us  the  sermon  on  the  Mount  and  then  de- 
scribe the  physical  action  of  speech,  saying,  "We 
know  of  no  other  way  to  talk  ;U.  and  then,  you  see, 
the  conclusion  would  be  quite  easy ;  The  sermon 
on  the  mount  furnishes  no  evidence  that  Jesus 
had  a  mind  I 

The  truth  of  the  matter  seems  to  be  this :  The 
Pharisees  tempted  Jesus  and  sought  after  a  sign. 
This  was  evidence  to  him  of  their  inwardly  cor- 
rupt condition,  and  caused  sorrow  of  heart,  mind, 
or  spirit.  This  sorrow  found  vent,  not  in  the 
words  of  his  lips,  but  in  a  sigh.  The  origin  of 
that  sigh  was  not — as  is  often  the  case— some  phys- 
ical weakness,  but  the  grief  of  the  inner  man,  or 
spirit,  which  was  now  veiled  in  mortality.  When 
Mr.  Grant  gives  James  2 : 26,  he  refers  to  the  mar- 
ginal translation  where  we  find  breath  instead  of 
spirit.  Why  did  he  not  refer  to  the  marginal 
translation  in  the  Syriac  version,  where  we  learn 
that  the  original  Syriac  was  spirit,  and  not  breath  ? 
The  evident  purpose  of  Mark,  the  historian,  was 
not  to  call  attention  to  "a  peculiar  kind  of  breath- 
ing," but  the  troubled  condition  of  Christ's  soul. 
We  do  not  object  to  a  thing  because  it  is  material ; 
but  when  our  particular  kind  of  materialism  leads 
us  to  overlook  the  better  part,  it  is  too  gross  to  be 
either  safe  or  desirable. 


104  THE  DEATH  OF  CHRIST. 

In  that  hour  Jesus  rejoiced  in  spirit.— Luke  10:21. 
He  groaned  in  the  spirit  and  was  troubled.— John  11:33. 
He  was  troubled  in  spirit.— John  13:21. 
And  the  child  grew  and  waxed  strong  in  spirit.— Luke 
1:80. 

Now  if  our  mortal-sonlist  friends  will  tell  us 
how  it  was  possible  for  that  glorified  and  immor- 
tal spirit  to  live  in  the  body  of  the  infant  babe  of 
Bethlehem,  and  develop  as  the  infant  grew  to 
manhood,  they  will  then  have  the  answer  to  a 
difficult  problem  which  they  often  ask  us  to  solve. 

Jesus,  like  man,  was  made  a  little  lower  than 
the  angels,  and  both  alike  were  subjected  to  death. 
If  Jesus  was  possessed  of  an  immortal  spirit  and 
man  is  not,  then  the  struggle  to  overcome  sin  and 
the  ills  of  the  flesh  for  him  and  his  brethren  is  not 
equal.  Nor,  in  that  case,  could  we  say  that  in  "all 
things"  he  was  made  "like  unto  his  brethren," 
and  "was  in  all  points  tempted  like  as  we  are,  yet 
without  sin."  (Heb.  4:15.)  Through  the  gospel 
we  are  made  "heirs  of  God,  and  joint  heirs  with 
Christ ;"  and  the  promise  is  that  we  shall  be  "glo- 
rified together,"  "if  so  be  that  we  suffer  with  him." 
Here  are  equality  and  justice  which  we  can  not  fail 
to  admire. 

We  now  come  to  the  death  of  Christ,  and  it 
will  not  be  difficult  for  us  to  determine  in  what 
that  death  consisted.  It  was  simply  the  separa- 
tion of  body  and  spirit,  with  the  return  of  the 
spirit  "to  God  who  gave  it."  Let  us  look  briefly 
at  his  own  teachings  concerning  his  death. 

And  Jesus  answered  them,  saying,  The  hour  is  come, 
that  the  Son  of  man  should  be  glorified.  Verily,  verily,  1 
say  unto  you,  Except  a  corn  of  wheat  fall  into  the  ground 
and  die,  it  abideth  alone;  but  if  it  die,  it  bringeth  forth 
much  fruit.— John  12:23,  24. 

Here  is  presented  the  true  idea  of  death.  When 
"a  corn  of  wheat"  is  put  in  the  ground  its  life  does 
not  cease,  but  assumes  a  changed  form.  A  sepa- 
ration occurs,  and  the  result  is  an  increase.  The 


NATURE  OF  LIFE  AND  DEATH.  105 

old  kernel  does  not  cease  to  be,  anJ  its  life  become 
extinct,  that  the  new  grain  may  appear ;  but  the 
life  continues,  thus  forming  <\  connecting  Jink 
between  ihr  old  and  the  new.  Life  assumes  a 
changed  form,  departs,  leaving  nothing  but  ft 
worthless  hull  behind.  This  is  what  we  call 
death. 

Should  the  kernel  placed  in  the  oavth  have  no 
germ  of  life  within  itself,  it  can  never  come  forth; 
but  the  departure  01  life  from  the  old  body>  we 
call  death. 

Jesus  frequently  alluded  to  his  death,  but 
nowhere  even  intimated  that  that  death  would  be 
a  cessation  of  conscious  being.  He  said : 

Therefore  doth  my  Father  love  me,  because  I  lay  down 
my  life  that  I  might  take  it  again.  No  man  taketh  it  from 
me,  but  I  lay  it  down  of  myself.  I  have  power  to  lay  It 
down,  and  I  have  power  to  take  it  again.  This  command- 
ment have  I  received  of  my  Father.— John  10:17, 18. 

"But,"  we  are  told,  "God,  the  Faiher,  'raised  up 
Christ  from  the  dead.'"  (Rom.  8:11.)  Yes,  and 
with  the  same  propriety  we  could  say  that  the 
Roman  soldiers  put  him  to  death ;  and  yet,  he 
says,  speaking  of  his  life,  "No  man  taketh  it 
from  me,  but  I  lay  it  down  of  myself."  It  required 
the  voluntary  co-operation  of  Christ  to  accomplish 
his  death,  and  the  same  voluntary  co-operation  to 
accomplish  his  resurrection.  "I  have  power  to  lay 
it  down,  and  I  have  power  to  take  it  again."  We 
are  compelled  to  believe  that  Jesus  here  refers  to 
his  body — the  body  which  had  been  prepared  for 
him.  (Heb.  10:5.) 

We  are  told  that  death  means  an  end  to  con- 
scious existence.  If  so,  what  became  of  the  pre- 
existent  Christ  when  Jesus  was  put  to  de  ith  ? 
Christ  was  to  abide  forever.  (Psalms  89 : 35-37 ; 
1JO :  4.)  Jesus  said,  referring  to  himself,  "the  Son 
abideth  ever."  The  Greek  word  from  which 
labideth"  comes,  is  meno  which  literally  means 


106  CHRIST  THE  LIGHT  OF  THE  WORLD. 

"to  remain,  continue."  The  word  abide,  or  abid- 
eth,  as  here  used  certainly  implies  a  conscious, 
continued  and  unbroken  standing  before  God.  To 
abide  is  one  thing ;  but  to  lose  conscious  existence 
and  become  as  though  he  "had  not  been,"  is  an  op- 
posite condition. 

Christ  is  the  source  of  intelligence  and  all 
spiritual  light  possessed  by  man. 

I  am  the  light  of  the  world:  he  that  followeth  me  shall 
not  walk  in  darkness,  but  shall  have  the  light  of  life.— John 
8:13. 

In  him  was  life;  and  the  life  was  the  light  of  m°i  — 
John  1:4. 

That  was  the  true  Light,  which  lighteth  every  man 
that  cometh  into  the  world.— John  1:9. 

If  this  "true  Light"  was  totally  blotted  out  at 
death,  what  was  the  condition  of  the  world  dur- 
ing the  time  in  which  Christ's  body  lay  in  the 
tomb?  We  do  not  believe  that  the  conscious 
existence  of  the  "Sun  of  righteousness"  was 
blotted  out  when  Jesus  died  on  the  cross ! 

Christ,  as  we  have  seen,  is  one  of  the  God- 
head. All  things  were  created  by  him.  He  is 
frequently  called  God  in  the  Scriptures,  and  we 
are  required  to  worship  him.  None,  we  presume, 
will  be  so  rash  as  to  deny  these  statements  which 
are  sustained  by  so  many  clear  declarations  of 
Scripture.  (Isa.  9:6,  7;  Titus  2:13;  Heb.  1:8.) 
Did  this  divine  being— second  person  in  the  God- 
head— and  creator  of  the  worlds,  become  as 
though  he  "had  not  been,"  at  death  ?  A  few  more 
texts  concerning  the  death  of  Christ  will  be  suffi- 
cient. 

For  the  Father  himself  loveth  you,  because  ye  have 
loved  me,  and  have  believed  that  I  came  out  from  God.  I 
came  forth  from  the  Father  and  am  come  into  the  world : 
a^ain,  I  leave  the  world,  and  go  to  the  Father.— Jno.  16:27, 
28. 

And  now,  O  Father,  glorify  thou  me  with  thine  own 
self  with  the  glory  which  I  had  with  thee  before  the  world 
was.  And  now  I  am  no  more  in  the  world,  but  these  are  in 


CHRIST'S  DEATH.  107 

the  world,  and  I  come  to  thee.  Holy  Father,  keep  through 
thine  own  name  those  whom  thou  hast  given  me,  that  they 
may  be  one,  as  we  are.  Father,  I  will  that  they  also  whom 
thou  hast  given  me  be  with  me  where  I  am;  that  they  may 
behold  my  glory  which  thou  hast  given  me;  for  thou  lov- 
Mst  me  before  the  foundation  of  the  world.— John  17:5,  11, 
24. 

The  hour  had  come  for  Jesus  to  be  delivered 
up  to  death ;  but  instead  of  representing  his  death 
as  a  cessation  of  conscious  existence,  he  clearly 
indicates  its  opposite  character  by  such  words  as 
these :  "I  leave  the  world  and  go  to  the  Father." 
''Glorify  thou  me  with  thine  own  self  with 
the  glory  which  I  had  with  thee  before 
the  world  was."  "I  come  to  thee."  "I 
will  that  they  also  whom  thou  hast  given  me  be 
with  me  where  I  am  ;  that  they  may  behold  my 
glory  which  thou  hast  given  me." 

In  complete  harmony  with  the  above  texts 
and  our  position  on  death,  are  the  last  words 
which  Jesus  spake  before  his  death.  "Father, 
into  thy  hands  I  commend  my  spirit." 

Thus  we  see,  that  in  the  case  of  Jesus  Christ, 
death  was  a  separation  of  body  and  spirit ;  a  de- 
parture from  the  world  to  be  with  the  Father. 
He  came  "in  the  flesh ;"  (not  simply  of  the  flesh.) 
He  suffered  and  died  in  the  flesh ;  but  in  the 
spirit,  as  the  apostle  tells  us,  "went  and  preached 
unto  the  spirits  in  prison."  (1  Peter  3 : 18-20.)  His 
life  and  death  throw  a  flood  of  light  on  all  import- 
ant subjects  of  life  and  death  as  applied  to  all 
men.  And  from  this  proof  alone,  we  would  be 
entirely  safe  in  affirming  that  death  is  not  an 
extinction  of  conscious  being,  but  a  separation, 
departure,  or  great  change  of  conscious  existence. 
Every  step  of  our  investigation  makes  this  fact 
more  apparent,  and  discovers  to  us  the  connecting 
link  between  this  life  and  that  which  is  to  come. 


PART  II. 


CHAPTER  T 

INTERMEDIATE  STATE  — BOTH  THE  RIGHTEOUS 
AND  THE  WICKED  ARE  CONSCIOUS  BETWEEN 
DEATH  AND  THE  RESURRECTION. 

By  the  "intermediate  state,"  we  mean  a  state 
of  conscious  existence  for  the  righteous  and  the 
wicked  between  death  and  the  resurrection.  We 
have  proceeded  sufficiently  far  in  our  investiga- 
tion to  learn  that  there  is  a  spirit  entity  in  man. 
That  this  spirit  (sometimes  called  soul)  is  the 
intellectual,  moral  and  active  part  of  man.  That 
man  "cannot  kill  the  soul ;"  therefore,  it  does  not 
die  with  the  body.  That  life  is  a  union  of  body 
and  spirit,  and  death  a  separation,  or  departure 
of  the  spirit  to  God.  Hence  the  intermediate 
state  is  a  necessity. 

Man  desires  to  live.  He  shrinks  from  a  state 
of  non-existence.  He  can  learn  but  little  in  this 
short  life,  at  the  best— just  enough  to  give  him  a 
faint  conception  of  the  vast  and  inexhaustible 
stores  of  knowledge  which  lie  beyond.  His  soul 
thirsts  for  this  knowledge,  and  he  desires  to  keep 
on  learning.  These  desires  are  not  carnal,  nor  in 
any  way  abnormal,  but  inherent  in  his  very 
nature.  They  are  exalting  and  ennobling  in  their 
character  and  tendency.  Who  gave  these  desires 
to  man  ?  God,  his  creator.  Will  he,  can  he,  so 
long  as  he  is  God,  fail  to  supply  these  demands  of 
the  soul  ?  No ;  he  evidently  will  not  and  can  not. 

Nature  shows  that  God  is  a  strict  economist, 
and  that  his  work,  in  a  general  sense,  is  progress- 
ive. Will  the  hundreds  and  thousands  of  years  be 


112  THIS  AND  THAT  WORLD. 

totally  lost,  while  countless  millions  lie  in  the  cold 
earth  ?  Such  a  position  necessitates  a  change  in 
the  character  of  God. 

But  we  come  to  a  more  serious  consideration. 
How  can  we  be  rewarded  or  punished  according  to 
the  deeds  done  in  the  body,  as  the  Bible  so  plainly 
and  fully  teaches,  unless  there  is  a  direct  connec- 
tion between  this  world  and  the  resurrection 
state  ?  Our  experiences  must  be  preserved  so  as 
to  be  utilized  by  us  in  the  day  of  judgment ;  but 
if  man  is  unconscious  between  death  and  the  res- 
urrection as  though  he  "had  not  been,"  then  are 
they  irretrievably  lost !  If  this  theory  which  we 
oppose  be  true,  then  the  new  Sodomites  in  the 
day  of  judgment,  will  be  punished  for  what  the  old 
ones  did ;  and  the  new  Gomorrahites  for  what  the 
old  Gomorrahites  did  ;  and  the  new  saints  of  God, 
made  wholly  from  the  dust  of  the  ground,  will  be 
rewarded  and  glorified  for  what  the  old  ones  did  ! 
Thus  we  see  that  there  exists  a  demand  and  neces- 
sity for  the  intermediate  state  which  is  so  plainly 
indicated  in  the  Bible. 

Jesus,  as  we  have  seen,  said,  when  speaking  of 
his  death,  "I  leave  the  world  and  go  to  the 
Father."  "And  now  I  am  no  more  in  the  world, 
but  these  are  in  the  world,  and  I  come  totothee." 

In  the  same  connection  he  makes  known  to 
the  Father  his  will  concerning  his  disciples  in  the 
following  words : 

Father,  I  will  that  they  also,  whom  thou  hast  given  me 
be  with  me  where  I  am;  that  they  may  behold  my  glory, 
which  thou  hast  given  me;  for  thou  lovedst  me  before  the 
foundation  of  the  world.— Jno.  17:24. 

Adventist  authors  claim  that  the  disciples 
were  not  to  be  with  Christ,  after  death,  till  his 
return,  or  second  coming ;  and  in  proof  they  quote 
John  14: 3.  UI  will  come  again  and  receive  you 
unto  myself:  that  where  I  am,  there  ye  may  be 
also." 


THE  FAMILY  OF  SAINTS.  113 

The  mistake  here  made  is  in  limiting  the 
promise,  of  which  this  is  simply  a  part,  to  the  resur- 
rection state,  whereas  it  evidently  covers  the 
intermediate  state  also.  This  more  comprehen- 
sive position  harmonizes  with  all  the  teachings  of 
Christ  and  the  apostles  ;  but  the  other  does  not. 
The  great  promise  recorded  in  John  12  : 26,  is  in 
harmony  with  the  view  we  defend. 

If  any  man  serve  me,  let  him  follow  me;  and  where  I  am, 
there  shall  also  my  servant  be:  if  any  man  serve  me,  him 
will  my  Father  honor. 

The  fact  that  when  Jesus  comes  again  he  will 
bring  the  saints  with  him,  proves  our  position  to 
be  correct. 

For  if  we  believe  that  Jesus  died  and  rose  again,  even  so 
them  also  which  sleep  in  Jesus  will  God  bring  with  him.— 
Thes.  4:14. 

Our  opponents  place  a  construction  upon  this 
scripture  which  brings  it  in  plain  conflict  with 
other  passages. 

And  Enoch  also,  the  seventh  from  Adam,  prophesied  of 
these,  saying,  Behold,  the  Lord  cometh  with  ten  thousand 
of  his  saints.— Jude  14. 

Jude  here  uses  a  figure  of  speech  already  allud- 
ed to,  by  virtue  of  which  an  indefinite  number  is 
represented  by  a  definite  number.  The  same 
event  is  evidently  described  in  Zech.  14 : 5.  "And 
the  Lord  my  God  shall  come,  and  all  the  saints 
with  thee." 

These  plain  statements  of  the  word  show  that 
the  saints  are  with  Christ  in  the  intermediate 
state,  that  they  will  come  with  him  when  he 
returns,  and  in  this  manner  he  will,  through  the 
resurrection,  receive  them  unto  himself  in  glory. 

For  this  cause  I  bow  my  knees  unto  the  Father  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Of  whom  the  whole  family  in  heaven 
and  earth  is  named.— Eph.  3:14, 15. 

Paul  here  concedes  that  part  of  the  great  fam- 
ily of  God  was  in  heaven  in  his  day.  But  we  are 
told,  "that  branch  of  the  family  'in  heaven'  if 


114  JONES  ANSWERED. 

therefore  composed  of  the  Lord  Jesus  and  the 
angels,  that  branch  'on  earth'  is  composed  of  the 
righteous  living  and  dead." — "THANATOPSIS,"  p. 
22.  Thus  Mr.  Jones  makes  it  appear  that  Paul 
does  not  refer  to  departed  saints  in  heaven,  but  to 
Jesus  and  the  angels.  There  are  no  grounds  for 
this  assumption  found  in  the  chapter,  the  reading 
of  which  strongly  favors  the  idea  that  reference 
was  had  to  the  saints  only.  The  Revised  Version 
puts  the  matter  at  rest  in  harmony  with  the  view 
we  defend. 

For  this  cause  I  bow  my  knees  unto  the  Father,  from 
whom  every  family  in  heaven  and  on  earth  is  named. 

This  word  every  makes  it  clear  that  the  fam- 
ily in  heaven  to  whom  Paul  refers  is  composed  of 
families  who  were  once  on  the  earth;  unless 
we  suppose  that  the  angels  in  heaven  are  divided 
up  into  families. 

Who  shall  separate  us  from  the  love  of  Christ?  shall 
tribulation,  or  distress,  or  persecution,  or  famine,  or  nak- 
edness, or  peril,  or  sword?  For  I  am  persuaded,  that  nei- 
ther death,  nor  life,  nor  angels,  nor  principalities,  nor  pow- 
ers, nor  things  present,  nor  things  to  come,  nor  height, 
nor  depth,  nor  any  other  creature,  shall  be  able  to  sepa-- 
ate  us  from  the  love  of  God  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus  our 
Lord. 

"The  love  of  God  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus 
our  Lord"  is  mutual.  God  loves  us  and 
we  love  God,  and  this  forms  a  connecting  link 
between  God  and  his  people  which  can  not  be 
broken  so  long  as  they  abide  in  Christ.  No  possi- 
ble kind  of  opposition,  visible  or  invisible,  in  time 
or  in  eternity,  from  men  or  devils,  not  even  death, 
can  separate  them  "from  the  love  of  God."  This 
agrees  with  the  statement  Jesus  made  to  his  dis- 
ciples when  he  sent  them  out  to  preach  the  gospel 
among  their  enemies :  "And  fear  not  them  which 
kill  the  body,  but  are  not  able  to  kill  the  soul." 
The  leading  thought  in  the  apostle's  mind  was 
evidently  this :  "You  are  established  in  the  faitb 


EARNEST  OF  OUR  INHERITANCE.  115 

of  the  gospel,  and  there  is  no  possible  thing  that 
can  destroy  it."  Here  is  the  key.  "Who  shall 
separate  us  from  the  love  of  Christ?"  The  possi- 
bility of  God  losing  his  love  for  us  because  we  are 
greatly  tried  and  our  enemies  persecute  us,  is  not 
admissable ;  but  it  is  possible  for  us  to  lose  our 
love  for  him  in  the  midst  of  trial  persecu- 
tion and  death.  This  text  shows  beyond  reasona- 
ble doubt  that  conscious  existence  continues  on 
after  death. 

In  whom  ye  also  trusted,  after  that  ye  heard  the  word 
of  truth,  the  gospel  of  your  salvation:  in  whom  also,  after 
that  ye  believed,  ye  were  sealed  with  that  Holy  Spirit  of 
promise.  Which  is  the  earnest  of  our  inheritance  until  the 
redemption  of  the  purchased  possession,  unto  the  praise  of 
his  glory-— Eph.  1:13, 14. 

This  earnest  is  a  partial  reward ;  we  receive  it 
here  and  it  continues  "until  the  redemption  of  the 
purchased  possession."  Death  can  not  take  us 
from  it,  nor  it  from  us ;  therefore,  death  is  not  an 
extinction  of  conscious  existence.  It  matters  not 
whether  the  purchased  possession  be  declared  to 
be  the  earth  or  the  body,  for  in  either  case  the 
"earnest"  is  to  continue  until  the  time  of  the  res- 
urrection of  the  saints,  when  they  shall  receive 
their  full  reward. 

For  we  know  that  if  our  earthly  house  of  this  taber- 
nacle were  dissolved,  we  have  a  building  of  God,  a  house 
not  made  with  hands,  eternal  in  the  heavens.  For  in  this 
we  groan,  earnestly  desiring  to  be  clothed  upon  with  our 
house  which  is  from  heaven:  If  so  be  that  being  clothed 
we  shall  not  be  found  naked.  For  we  that  are  in  this  tab- 
ernacle do  groan,  being  burdened:  not  for  that  we  would 
be  unclothed,  but  clothed  upon  that  mortality  might  be 
swallowed  up  of  life.  Now,  he  that  hath  wrought  us  for 
the  self-same  thing  is  God,  who  also  hath  given  unto  us  the 
earnest  of  the  Spirit.  Therefore  we  are  always  confident, 
knowing  that  whilst  we  are  at  home  in  the  body,  we  are 
absent  from  the  Lord.  (For  we  walk  by  faith  not  by  sight:) 
We  are  confident  I  say,  and  willing  rather  to  be  absent 
from  the  body,  and  to  be  present  with  the  Lord.— 2  Cor  5: 
1-& 


116  OUR  EARTHLY  HOUSE. 

We  have  quoted  part  of  this  scripture  before, 
but  for  another  purpose.  The  apostle  speaks  of 
the  mortal  body  as  an  "earthly  house"  which  will 
be  "dissolved;"  the  "house"  or  ''tabernacle" 
in  which  we  "do  groan,  being  burdened."  He 
looks  forward  to  the  time  when  we  shall  receive 
our  new  bodies,  or  "our  house  which  is  from  heav- 
en," at  which  time  we  are  to  receive  a  fulness  of 
reward.  But  he  does  not,  like  our  Adventist 
friends,  overlook  the  intermediate  state,  but  vir- 
tually makes  it  a  necessity  to  this  glorious  resur- 
rection, which  it  certainly  is.  Hence  the  words, 
"We  are  .  .  .  willing  rather  to  be  absent  from 
the  body,  and  to  be  present  with  the  Lord."  Be- 
ing absent  from  the  body  and  present  with  the 
Lord,  and  our  conscious  existence  extinct 
at  death,  are  certainly  opposite  conditions. 
According  to  Paul  the  former  is  true,  hence  the 
latter  is  not  true. 

For  to  me  to  live  is  Christ,  and  to  die  is  gain.  But  if  I 
live  in  the  flesh,  this  is  the  fruit  of  my  labor:  yet  what  I 
shall  choose  I  wot  not.  For  I  am  in  a  strait  betwixt  two, 
having  a  desire  to  depart,  and  to  be  with  Christ,  which  is 
far  better:  Nevertheless,  to  abide  in  the  flesh  is  more 
needful  for  you.  And  having  this  confidence,  I  know  that 
I  shall  abide  and  continue  with  you  all  for  your  further- 
ance and  joy  of  faith.— Phil.  1:21-25. 

This  scripture  is  a  strong  proof  of  the  inter- 
mediate state,  but  Adventist  authors,  in  different 
ways,  attempt  to  turn  it  aside.  Wm.  Sheldon,  in 
•'ADVENTISM,"  p.  132,  darkens  the  statements  of 
Paul  in  the  following  manner  : 

Death  would  have  liberated  Paul  from  every  species  of 
persecution,  like  scourging,  stoning,  and  imprisonment; 
and  in  this  respect  it  would  have  been  "gain"  to  Paul  to  die; 
but  in  thus  escaping  this  dilemna.  he  would  have  fallen 
into  the  hand  of  an  "enemy"— DEATH— and  Paul  was  in  a 
strait  betwixt  these  two:  mortal  life,  with  bitter  persecu- 
tion on  one  hand,  and  the  "enemy"  death,  on  the  other 
hand:  he  did  not  choose  either  of  these  two  things,  but  he 
did  choose  a  third  thing,  which  was  "to  depart  and  be  witfe 


SHELDON  ANSWERED.  117 

Christ."  If  "to  depart  and  be  with  Christ"  includes  death  as 
a  channel  through  which  to  depart,  it  makes  Paul  affirm 
(1)  that  he  did  not  choose  this  mortal  life;  (2)  that  he  did 
not  choose  the  enemy  death;  and  (3)  that  he  did  choose 
death:  thus  making  Paul  contradict  himself  in  the  same 
breath.  Hence,  it  is  evident,  that  "to  depart  and  be  with 
Christ"  implies  something  different  from  death. 

After  penning  the  above,  Mr.  Sheldon  pro- 
ceeds to  claim  that  "Paul  den'red  an  immediate 
translation,"  though  he  did  not  "expect  it." 

If  the  above  position  is  correct,  then  Paul 
was  "in  a  strait"  (distress;  difficulty ;  distressing 
necessity.  Webster.)  between  two  things,  one  of 
which,  "death,"  he  does  not  name,  except  in  the 
first  verse,  where  he  calls  it  "gain."  The  two 
things  "betwixt"  which  Paul  was  in  a  "strait"  are 
plainly  mentioned  by  him  in  the  23  and  24  verses : 
For  I  am  in  a  strait  betwixt  two,  having  a  desire  to 
depart,  and  be  with  Christ,  which  is  far  better:  neverthe- 
less to  abide  in  the  flesh  is  more  needful  for  you. 

Kemaining  "in  the  flesh"  is  life  as  we  see  it; 
departing  and  being  "with  Christ"  is  evidently  its 
opposite,  which  is  death.  Paul  desired  "to  depart 
and  be  with  Christ"  because  it  would  be  "gain;" 
and  in  the  first  verse  he  says,  "To  die  is  gain.11 
The  idea  of  his  translation  is  not  so  much  as  hint- 
ed at ;  but  is  one  of  the  groundless  assumptions 
which  it  becomes  necessary  to  make  in  order  to 
turn  aside  the  things  which  are  "written,"  and 
which  are  in  plain  opposition  to  the  dogma  of 
mortal-soulism.  If  death  is  an  extinction  of  con- 
scious being,  what  would  Paul  have  gained  by  dy- 
ing? We  are  told  "it  would  be  a  'gain'  in  releas- 
ing him  from  trial,"  etc.  We  can  understand  how 
he  would  be  released  from  all  his  trials  by  passing 
into  the  unconscious  state,  but  would  he  not  lose 
all  the  precious  blessings  which  result  from  the 
full  service  of  God  ?  Communion  with  God ;  the 
bright  hope  of  future  bliss ;  actual  possession  in 
ttxia  life,  of  the  "earnest  of  our  inheritance,"  to- 


118  DEATH  A  DEPARTURE. 

gether  with  many  other  things  which  gave  the 
apostle  great  consolation,  would  all  be  lost !  Life 
may  be  filled  with  trials,  but  when  we  do  right 
and  are  fully  engaged  in  the  service  of  the  true 
Grod,  it  is  vastly  better  than  a  state  of  non-exist- 
ence ;  and  the  idea  that  Paul  thought  that  to  be- 
come as  though  he  "had  not  been,"  would  be 
"gain,"  is  absurd — has  no  foundation  in  fact  or 
right  reason.  Paul  was  not  discouraged  with 
trials  so  that  he  desired  to  become  extinct  in  order 
to  get  relief;  but  he  desired  "to  depart  and  be 
with  Christ,"  which  was  better  for  him,  in  one 
sense,  than  to  "abide  in  the  flesh;"  but  he  was 
willing  to  live  that  he  might  be  of  benefit  to  the 
church.  First,  he  does  not  know  what  to  choose, 
life  or  death,  but  second,  he  becomes  reconciled  to 
his  position  and  says,  "I  know  that  I  shall  abide." 
A  few  years  later,  Paul  became  satisfied  that  the 
time  of  his  death  was  at  hand  : 

For  I  am  now  ready  to  be  offered,  and  the  time  of  my 
departure  is  at  hand.  I  have  fought  a  good  fight,  I  have 
finished  my  course,  I  have  kept  the  faith.— 2  Tim.  4:6,  7. 

It  is  admitted  that  Paul  here  refers  to  his 
death;  but,  notice,  he  calls  it  a  "departure"  just 
as  he  does  in  Phil.  1 : 23.  Would  good  sense  and 
taste  lead  us  to  believe  that  Paul  meant  by  "de- 
part" and  "departure,"  a  cessation  of  conscious 
being?  We  think  not.  Paul's  statements  are 
harmonious,  and  in  the  above  scriptures  he  evi- 
dently meant  just  what  is  expressed  in  2  Cor.  5  :8. 
We  are  confident,  I  say,  and  willing  rather  to  be  absent 
from  the  body  and  to  be  present  with  the  Lord. 

The  idea  of  our  being  present  with  the  Lord 
as  soon  as  we  lose  our  conscious  existence  is  rather 
a  strange  one. 

Before  me  is  a  little  pamphlet  entitled  "DE- 
PARTING AND  BEING  WITH  CHRIST^"  by  Elder  J. 
N.  Andrews.  He  begins  his  exegesis  of  the  scrip- 
ture referred  to  in  the  following  manner* 


PAUL'S  DEPARTURE.  119 

What  did  Paul  mean  by  departing? 

It  is  fair  to  answer  this  by  his  words  to  Timothy :  "The 
time  of  my  departure  is  at  hand."— 2  Tim.  4:6.  It  was  his 
death. 

The  writer  then  proceeds  with  the  claim  that 
Paul  "could  not  be  with  Christ  by  dying,"  because 
the  dead  are  unconscious.  The  reader  will  notice 
that  Mr.  Sheldon  claims  that  "to  depart"  means 
translation ;  while  Mr.  Andrews  frankly  concedes 
that  it  means  death.  But  Mr.  Andrews  also 
claims  that  departing  is  one  thing,  and  being 
"with  Christ"  is  another  thing.  We  give  his  own 
words : 

Then  how  do  you  reconcile  all  these  testimonies  with 
the  language  of  Paul,  quoted  at  the  head  of  this  article,  in 
which  he  says,  "Having  a  desire  to  depart,  and  to  be  with 
Christ,  which  is  far  better?"  The  reconciliation  is  not  a 
matter  of  difficulty.  The  departure  is  by  death;  the  being 
with  Christ  is  by  the  resurrection.  These  are  two  events, 
and  not  one  and  the  same  thing.  "To  depart,  AND  to  be 
with  Christ,  which  is  far  better."  We  may  illustrate  this 
by  a  supposition.  We  will  say  that  Paul,  when  at  Miletus, 
being  very  anxious  to  see  the  brethren  in  Jerusalem,  and 
to  find  rest  from  the  severe  labors  of  the  field  he  had,  in 
the  face  of  bitter  opposition,  so  long  cultivated,  used  this 
language:  "Having  a  desire  to  depart,  and  to  be  with 
James  at  Jerusalem."  No  one  would  misunderstand  that 
language.  The  departing  was  one  thing;  the  being  with 
James,  another  thing  at  some  distance  in  the  future,  pp. 
7,8. 

Mr.  Andrews'  position  is  no  more  defensible 
than  Mr.  Sheldon's.  While  Paul  was  in  the  body 
he  was  away  from  Christ;  but  by  leaving  the 
body— departing — he  would  secure  the  presence  of 
Christ.  The  departing  was  the  means,  the  pres- 
ence of  Christ  the  end.  When  the  departure  was 
accomplished,  the  presence  of  Christ  was  secured. 
Take,  for  instance,  Mr.  Andrews'  own  illustra- 
tion. "To  be  with  James  at  Jerusalem"  was  the 
thing  which  Paul  desired;  to  make  the  journey 
from  Miletus  was  a  necessary  means.  When  the 
journey  was  completed  the  presence  of  James  (the 


120  IT  PROVES  CONSCIOUSNESS. 

end  desired)  was  secured.  In  this  case  the  word 
"depart"  represents  the  entire  journey,  at  the  end 
of  which  Paul  would  be  in  the  presence  of  James. 
Being  with  Christ  was  more  desirable,  in  the 
sense  of  present  enjoyment,  than  to  remain  in  the 
flesh;  and  it  would  be  "gain"  in  point  of  time. 
The  sooner  Paul  died  the  sooner  he  would  secure 
the  presence  of  Christ.  This  proves  consciousness 
between  death  and  the  resurrection.  For  if  Paul 
could  not  go  into  the  presence  of  Christ  till  he 
was  resurrected,  and  death  is  an  end  to  conscious 
existence,  then  it  could  not,  in  any  sense,  be  a 
"gain,"  neither  in  time  nor  condition. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  then,  that  Paul  really  expected 
to  be  immediately  with  Christ  when  he  died;  that  in  pro- 
portion as  his  labors  were  protracted  before  death,  would 
the  time  be  put  off  when  he  should  be  with  Christ,  and  that 
as  his  period  of  labor  was  cut  short  by  death,  would  the 
period  be  shortened  which  intervened  between  him  and 
Christ;  and  yet  this  could  not  have  been  the  case,  had  he 
believed  that  the  soul  died  with  the  body.  The  same 
writer  says,  upon  this  passage:  "The  apostle  does  not  say, 
that  he  expected  to  be  with  Christ  immediately  on  his 
departure."  We  reply,  the  apostle  most  certainly  does  say 
that  very  thing  in  effect.  He  says  he  has  "a  desire  to 
depart  and  to  be  with  Christ."  He  has  a  desire  to  depart, 
as  a  means;  to  be  with  Christ,  as  an  end.  Now  he  could 
not  have  had  a  desire  to  depart  for  the  sake  of  being  with 
Christ,  unless  he  "expected  to  be  with  Christ,*'  in  conse- 
quence of,  or  as  a  result  of  his  departure.  Such  efforts  to 
turn  aside  texts  from  their  natural  force  and  meaning,  only 
prove  how  hard  the  theory  sought  to  be  sustained  is 
pressed  by  them.— "IMMORTALITY  OF  THE  SOUL,"  by  Rev. 
Luther  Lee,  D.  D.  pp.  123, 124. 

The  learned  committee  who  have  given  us  the 
Revised  Version,  and  who  gave  special  attention 
to  the  punctuation,  render  Paul's  language  as 
follows : 

For  to  me  to  live  is  Christ,  and  to  die  is  gain.  But  if  to 
live  in  the  flesh,— if  this  is  the  fruit  of  my  work,  then  what 
I  shall  choose  I  wot  not.  But  I  am  in  a  strait  betwixt  the 
two,  having  the  desire  to  depart  and  be  with  Christ;  for  it  is 
very  far  better:  yet  to  abide  in  the  flesh  is  more  needful 
for  your  sak«.M 


BUT  ONE  PATH  TO  HARMONY.  121 

The  reader  will  notice  that  there  is  no  comma 
after  the  word  "depart,"  as  there  should  not  be, 
and  the  departure  and  being  with  Christ  are  as 
closely  connected  as  language  can  express  them. 
We  know  of  but  one  way  of  harmonizing  Messrs. 
Sheldon  and  Andrews  with  each  other,  and  with 
Paul,  and  that  is  by  admitting  the  conscious  ex- 
istence of  man  between  death  and  the  resurrec- 
tion. 

And  he  said  unto  Jesus,  Lord,  remember  me  when  thou 
comest  into  thy  kingdom.  And  Jesus  said  unto  him,  Ver- 
ily I  say  unto  thee,  Today  shalt  thou  be  with  me  in  para- 
dise. And  when  Jesus  had  cried  with  a  loud  voice,  he  said, 
Father,  into  thy  hands  I  commend  my  spirit:  and  having 
said  thus,  he  gave  up  the  ghost.— Luke  23:42,  43,  46. 

This  dying  thief,  whom  we  believe  to  have 
been  a  disciple  of  Christ,  at  one  time,  truly  re- 
pented of  the  crime  he  had  committed,  and 
paid  the  debt  according  to  the  laws  of  the  Roman 
government.  Thus  he  brought  himself  into  a 
state  of  reconciliation  with  God,  and  realizing 
that  in  that  condition  he  had  just  claim  on  the 
mercy  and  power  of  Christ,  he  cries  out  in  the 
agonies  ^>f  death,  "Lord  remember  me  when  thou 
comest  into  thy  kingdom."  No  time  or  place  now 
for  an  explanation  concerning  the  Kingdom  of 
God  ;  but  Jesus  proceeds  at  once  to  inform  the  dy- 
ing penitent  that  which  he  could  and  would  do 
for  him,  and  here  is  the  answer :  "Verily  I  say 
unto  thee,  today  shalt  thou  be  with  me  in  para- 
dise." How  consoling  must  have  been  these 
words  as  they  fell  from  the  lips  of  him  whom  this 
man  now  recognizes  as  his  Lord !  Then,  after 
making  this  plain  promise,  Jesus  said,  "Father,  in- 
to thy  hands  I  commend  my  spirit ;  and  having  said 
thus,  he  gave  up  the  ghost."  The  whole  account 
is  plain,  literal  and  unambiguous.  What  person 
with  common  intelligence,  going  directly  to  the 
word  for  light,  would  fail  to  understand  that  this 


122  ADVENTIST  OBJECTIONS. 

text  teaches  an  intermediate  state  of  conscious 
existence  for  man  ? 

Adventists  present  two  leading  objections  to 
our  position  on  this  text.  1st.  A  want  of  har- 
mony between  the  request  and  the  reply. 

What  was  the  request?  "Lord  remember  me  when  thou 
comest  into  thy  kingdom."  What  was  the  reply  ?  "AMEN" 
—or,  "So  LET  IT  BE:"  that  is,  Let  it  be  according  to  thy 
request— and  then  to  make  the  matter  doubly  positive, 
Jesus  adds:  "I  say  unto  thee  today,  [despite  surrounding 
circumstances,  everything  to  human  appearance  looking 
as  though  I  should  never  have  a  kingdom,  yet]  thou  shalt 
be  with  me  in  Paradise,"  which  shall  bloom  in  my  king- 
dom.— "ADVENTISM,"  p.  72. 

Thus,  by  retranslating,  paraphrasing  and  re- 
ferring us  to  "ancient  punctuation,"  (as  he  does 
on  p.  71)  Mr.  Sheldon  makes  out  his  case.  What  an- 
cient punctuation  it  is  that  differs  from  that  in 
the  common  version,  Mr.  Sheldon  does  not  say. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  raise  the  question  as  to 
the  teachings  of  the  Bible  concerning  the  King- 
dom of  the  Messiah.  The  important  point  is, 
What  did  the  penitent  thief  mean  by  the  request, 
"Lord,  remember  me  when  thou  comest  into  thy 
kingdom?"  The  Jews,  as  a  people,  overlooked  the 
first  coming  of  Christ,  and  hence  they  expected 
when  the  Messiah  should  come,  he  would  speedily 
triumph  over  their  enemies  and  restore  to  them 
the  Kingdom  of  Israel.  The  disciples,  including 
the  apostles  whom  Christ  chose  and  ordained,  had 
the  same  gross  and  carnal  conception  of  the  king- 
dom, and  the  work  of  the  Messiah.  These 
thoughts  seem  to  have  remained  with  them  till 
sometime  after  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  and  it 
is  not  probable  that  there  was  any  considerable 
change  in  this  respect  till  after  the  bestowment  of 
the  Holy  Spirit. 

Jesus  permitted  his  disciples  to  have  in  their 
posssession  two  swords  at  the  time  of  his  betrayal, 
in  order,  as  we  believe,  that  he  might  the  more 


CHRIST'S  KINGDOM.  123 

successfully  impress  their  minds  with  the  folly  of 
trying  to  establish  his  kingdom  by  force.  That  he 
might  the  more  successfully  teach  them  that  his 
work  was  spiritual,  not  carnal,  and  his  kingdom 
from  heaven,  not  of  earth.  (Luke  22:35-38.) 
When  the  trying  time  came  the  disciples  asked  if 
they  should  "smite  with  the  sword."  (Luke  22: 
49.)  In  Matt.  26  : 51-54,  we  read : 

And  behold,  one  of  them  which  were  with  Jesus, 
stretched  out  his  hand,  and  drew  his  sword,  and  struck  a 
servant  of  the  high  priest,  and  smote  off  his  ear.  Then 
said  Jesus  unto  him,  Put  up  again  thy  sword  into  his  place; 
for  all  they  that  take  the  sword,  shall  perish  with  the 
sword.  Thinkest  thou  that  I  can  not  now  pray  to  my 
Father,  and  he  shall  presently  give  me  more  than  twelve 
legions  of  angels.  But  how  then  shall  the  scriptures  be 
fulfilled,  that  thus  it  must  be  ? 

At  the  time  of  his  crucifixion,  the  disciples 
fled,  and  it  would  seem,  almost  gave  up  in  despair. 
One  day,  while  two  of  them  were  going  from  Jeru- 
salem to  Emmaus,  "Jesus  himself  drew  near,  and 
went  with  them.  But  their  eyes  were  holden  that 
they  should  not  know  him."  (Luke  24:13-16.) 
The  disciples  told  the  supposed  stranger  how  Jes- 
us had  been  put  to  death,  and  revealed  to  him 
their  bitter  disappointment  in,  the  following 
words  : 

But  we  trusted  that  it  had  been  he  which  should  have 
redeemed  Israel."— Verse  21. 

About  forty  days  after  this  time,  when  Jesus 
assembled  with  the  disciples,  they  made  a  formal 
request  of  that  which  seemed  to  be  uppermost  in 
their  minds. 

When  they  therefore  were  come  together,  they  asked  of 
him,  saying,  Lord,  wilt  thou  at  this  time  restore  again  the 
kingdom  to  Israel  ?  And  he  said  unto  them,  It  is  not  for 
you  to  know  the  times  or  the  seasons  which  the  Father 
hath  put  in  his  own  power.— Acts  1:6,  7. 

The  disciples  thought  it  was  high  time  for  the 
kingdom  to  be  restored.  But  they  were  mistaken, 


124  CONCERNING  PUNCTUATION. 

and  had  not  yet  understood  the  character  of  their 
work. 

Now,  is  it  not  absurd  to  suppose  that  the  thief 
had  thoughts  and  ideas,  concerning  the  kingdom  of 
God,  far  in  advance  of  the  apostles  ?  He  evident- 
ly believed  that  Jesus  was  likely  to  triumph  over 
his  enemies,  at  any  moment,  and  trample  them 
under  his  feet.  Hence  the  request,  "Remember 
me  when  thou  comest  into  thy  kingdom."  And 
in  harmony  with  what  Jesus  knew  to  be  the  real 
request  of  the  dying  penitent,  and  without  any 
endorsement  of  his  ideas  of  the  speedy  establish- 
ment of  the  kingdom,  Jesus  makes  the  very  appro- 
priate reply:  "Yerily  I  say  unto  thee,  to-day 
thou  shalt  be  with  me  in  paradise."  There  is, 
therefore,  perfect  harmony  between  the  request 
and  the  reply,  allowing  the  punctuation  to  remain 
as  it  is  in  the  common  version ;  but  should  we 
change  the  punctuation,  this  harmony  would  not 
exist. 

As  mortal-soulists  are  compelled  to  remove 
the  comma  which  is  placed  after  "thee"  and  either 
place  it  after  the  phrase  "today,"  or  dispense 
with  it  altogether,  we  give  a  little  attention  to 
this  point.  Punctuation,  they  tell  us,  was  not  the 
work  of  inspiration.  True,  but  it  was  just  as 
much  the  work  of  inspiration  as  was  the  transla- 
tion of  the  Bible  from  Greek  into  English.  Both 
were  needful,  and  both  were  and  are  a  blessing  to 
the  people  at  large,  though  it  would  be  folly  to 
claim  absolute  perfection  for  either  one.  There  is, 
however,  far  more  safety  in  the  translations,  with 
the  punctuation  they  contain,  furnished  us  by 
large  committees  of  good  scholars,  and  by  individ- 
uals whose  leading  object,  if  not  their  sole  pur- 
pose, has  been  to  furnish  the  people  with  the 
scriptures,  as  nearly  as  possible  as  they  left  the 
hands  of  inspired  men,  than  there  is  in  the  work 


DIFFERENT  VERSIONS.  125 

of  individuals  who  are  bending  all  their  energies 
to  support  certain  dogmas  to  which  they  are 
wedded. 

King  James'  Version  was  the  work  of  many 
hands,  selected  from  among  the  best  scholars  of 
the  age.  The  Geneva  Version  agrees  with  it  in 
the  wording  and  punctuation  of  this  text.  The 
Syriac  reads  as  follows : 

Jesus  said  to  him:    verily  I  say  to  you,  That  this  day 
thou  shalt  be  with  rne  in  paradise. 

Douay:    And  Jesus  said  to  him:    Amen  I  say  to  thee. 
this  day  shalt  thou.  be  with  me  in  paradise. 

What  is  termed  the  Revised  Version  was  com- 
menced in  1870  and  completed  in  1884.  At  first 
the  committee  numbered  twenty-five,  and  at  the 
last  fifteen.  These  men  were  evidently  from 
among  the  best  scholars  to  be  found  in  Europe 
and  America.  One  of  the  rules  by  which  they 
were  to  be  governed  reads  as  follows :  7.  To  re- 
vise the  headings  of  chapters  and  pages,  para- 
graphs, italics,  and  punctuation. 

In  the  preface  to  the  New  Testament,  pub- 
lished in  1881,  we  find  the  following  statement : 
"In  accordance  with  the  seventh  rule,  we  have 
carefully  revised  the  paragraphs,  italics,  and 
punctuation."  Turning  to  the  text  under  consid- 
eration, we  find  it  worded  and  punctuated  pre- 
cisely the  same  as  King  James.  It  may,  there- 
fore, be  safely  stated  that  the  translation  and 
punctuation  of  this  text,  as  found  in  the  common 
version  are  correct ;  and  the  fact  that  Adventist 
authors  have  to  change  it  in  order  to  make  out 
their  case,  is  strong  evidence  against  their  posi- 
tion. 

But  our  opponents  do  not  propose  to  give  up 
this  point  if  they  can  help  it.  They  evidently 
realize  that  to  give  up  this  text  is  to  give  up  their 
case.  A  representative  minister  of  the  G.  A. 
Church,  and  editor  of  the  Christian  Armory,  in 


126  ELDER  W  ATKINS'  ERROR. 

public  debate  with  the  writer,  last  winter,  made 
the  following  claim  in  favor  of  removing  the  com- 
ma and  placing  it  after,  instead  of  before,  "today." 

Now  again  we  consider  whether  the  comma  should  be 
placed  before  or  after  the  word  today.  The  seventh  rule 
adopted  by  those  who  made  the  Revised  Version  shows 
that  they  did  not  consider  the  punctuation  of  King  James 
Version  to  be  always  correct.  For  example  Hebrews  10:12, 
makes  it  say  what  I  do  not  believe,  what  Bro.  Lambert 
does  not  believe,  what  no  one  believes.  The  revisers  there- 
fore corrected  the  punctuation  where  it  was  defective.  I 
have  examined  the  punctuation  adopted  with  "semeron," 
the  original  for  "today,"  259  times,  and  I  find  there  are  170 
witnesses  in  favor  of  placing  the  comma  after  the  adverb 
"today." 

Here  we  have  it,  sure  enough ;  but  it  certain- 
ly gives  evidence  of  a  bad  case.  The  revisers  cor- 
rected the  punctuation  of  the  King  James'  Ver- 
sion, but  left  the  punctuation  of  the  text  under 
consideration  unchanged.  Thus  their  own  wit- 
ness speaks  against  them.  But  the  richest  part 
of  this  argument  is  that  170  witnesses  out  of  259 
testify  "in  favor  of  placing  the  comma  after  the 
adverb  today"  We  need  hardly  inform  the  reader 
that  punctuation  depends  upon  the  construction 
of  sentences,  and  the  construction  depends  upon 
the  sentiment,  or  thoughts,  to  be  presented.  Does 
not  this  minister  and  editor  know  this?  If  258 
out  of  the  259  examples  cited,  were  found  in  sen- 
tences so  constructed  as  to  require  the  comma  to 
be  placed  after  "today,"  it  would  weigh  nothing 
in  favor  of  changing  the  punctuation  in  the  pass- 
age referred  to.  If  this  argument  is  worth  any- 
thing, then,  the  comma  should  always  be  placed 
after  the  phrase  "today,"  without  any  reference 
to  the  construction  of  the  sentences  in  which  the 
phrase  is  found. 

2.  It  is  claimed  that  Christ  and  the  thief  did 
not  go  to  paradise  the  day  of  their  death,  because 
there  was  no  paradise  in  existence  and  would  not 


A  PARADISE  NOW.  127 

be  till  it  was  established  in  the  renewed  earth. 
This  objection  is  not  well  founded.  Having  dis- 
posed of  the  punctuation,  the  whole  matter  re- 
solves itself  into  this  shape.  Shall  we  accept  the 
plain  statement  of  Jesus  in  good  faith,  or  shall  we 
allow  it  to  be  removed  by  a  mere  theory  or  belief 
of  men  ?  Our  Adventist  friends  will  admit  that 
there  is  such  a  place  as  "heaven"  in  which  God, 
Christ  and  the  angels  dwell.  We  have  shown,  too, 
that  Jesus  desired  and  promised  that  his  disciples 
should  be  with  him  in  the  future  state.  Hence  it 
is,  that  part  of  the  great  family  of  God  are  now  in 
heaven,  and  the  other  part  on  the  earth  ;  (Eph.  3 : 
15.)  but  in  a  coming  day  they  shall  be  gathered  in 
one. 

That  in  the  dispensation  of  the  fulness  of  times  he 
might  gather  together  in  one  all  things  in  Christ,  both 
which  are  in  heaven,  and  which  are  on  earth;  even  in  him. 

Now  why  cannot  this  "heaven"  be  called  par- 
adise? But  the  fact  that  Jesus  said  the  thief 
should  be  with  him  that  very  day  "iw  paradise," 
ought  to  be  sufficient  evidence  that  a  place  called 
paradise  had  an  existence.  Paul,  as  we  have  seen, 
knew  a  man  who  "was  caught  up  into  paradise," 
and  there  is  not  a  particle  of  evidence  to  prove 
that  he  referred  to  the  "new  earth."  The  stated 
fact  that  Paul  did  not  know  whether  he  was  "in 
the  body,  or  out  of  the  body,"  shows  that  he  did 
not  refer  to  a  period  after  the  resurrection. 

Abbott,  in  his  "DICTIONARY  OF  KELIGIOUS 
KNOWLEDGE,"  defines  paradise  as  follows  : 

This  word  occurs  eight  times  only  in  the  Bible.  In  Jew- 
ish theology  it  signifies  that  part  of  Hades,  or  the  abode  of 
the  dead,  where  the  souls  of  the  righteous  await  resurrec- 
tion. It  seems  also  to  have  been  employed  to  indicate  the 
final  abode  of  the  blessed;  at  least  this  is  the  signification 
imputed  to  it  by  some  critics,  as  it  occurs  in  Rev.  2:7.  In 
its  ordinary  use  it  did  not  differ  widely  from  Abraham's 
bosom,  or  rather,  perhaps,  Abraham's  bosom  indicated  a 
place  of  especial  honor  in  paradise. 


128  PARADISE  AND  THE  JEWS. 

Whea  Jesus  used  the  word  "paradise"  he  knew 
that  the  Jews  would  understand  him  to  mean  a 
place  of  peace  and  rest  for  the  righteous,  between 
death  and  the  resurrection.  Heaven  is  not  sim- 
ply a  place,  but  a  condition ;  and  it  is  eminently 
fitting  that  the  place  and  condition  for  the  re- 
deemed, after  this  life,  should  be  called  paradise. 

We  will  examine  one  more  objection  and  then 
pass  on.  Jesus  said  to  Mary,  three  days  after  his 
death, 

Touch  me  not;  for  I  am  not  yet  ascended  to  my  Father: 
but  go  to  my  brethren  and  say  unto  them,  I  ascend  unto 
my  Father  and  your  Father;  and  to  my  God,  and  your 
God.— Jno.  20:17. 

Jesus  evidently  referred  to  his  bodily  ascen- 
sion which  had  not  yet  taken  place.  It  was  far 
more  important  that  Mary  should  hasten  to  inform 
his  brethren  that  he  was  risen,  than  to  tarry  that 
she  might  embrace  him  with  a  kiss.  What  other 
purpose  could  Jesus  have  had  in  refusing  Mary 
the  privilege  of  touching  him?  Eight  days  after 
this  Thomas  was  permitted  to  thrust  his  hand 
into  his  side.  (Jno.  20 : 26,  27. ) 

The  established  order  of  God  is  that  the  spirit 
returns  to  him  at  death.  "The  man  Christ  Jesus" 
conformed  strictly  to  this  order  of  things,  though 
how  long  he  remained  in  the  presence  of  his 
Father  and  the  waiting  ones,  we  do  not  know ; 
though,  perhaps,  it  was  but  for  a  very  short 
time,  after  which,  he  proceeded  to  his  mission  "to 
the  spirits  in  prison." 

And  when  he  had  opened  the  fifth  seal,  I  saw  under  the 
altar  the  souls  of  them  that  were  slain  for  the  word  of 
God,  and  for  the  testimony  which  they  held:  And  they 
cried  with  a  loud  voice  saying,  How  long,  O  Lord,  holy  and 
true,  dost  thou  not  judge  and  avenge  our  blood  on  them 
that  dwell  on  the  earth  ?  And  white  robes  were  given  unto 
every  one  of  them ;  and  it  was  said  unto  them,  that  they 
should  rest  yet  for  a  little  season,  until  their  fellow-ser- 
vants also  and  their  brethren,  that  should  be  killed  as  they 
were,  should  be  fulfilled.— Be v.  6:9-11. 


SOULS  UNDER  THE  ALTAR.  129 

We  are  told  that  this  is  only  a  vision.  Very 
well;  in  this  vision,  John  saw  souls  which  had 
been  slain,  and  which  had  not  yet  received  a  res- 
urrection. "White  robes  were  given  unto  every 
one  of  them,"  and  they  were  told  to  rest,  or  wait, 
till  their  "fellow-servants  also  and  their  brethren, 
that  should  be  killed  as  they  were,  should  be  ful- 
filled." If  this  does  not  represent  conscious  activ- 
ity for  the  righteous  between  death  and  the  resur- 
rection, the  vision  is  false  and  deceptive.  Please 
notice,  it  is  not  a  vision  of  the  resurrection  nor  of 
death ;  but  of  the  condition  of  the  righteous  after 
death  and  before  the  resurrection.  The  efforts 
made  by  Wiley  Jones  and  others  to  show  that  the 
"white  robes"  were  only  prospective,  are  failures, 
and  the  scriptures  to  which  they  refer  do  not  fur- 
nish parallel  cases.  (See  Rom.  4 : 17  :  1  Cor.  3 :22.) 
John  saw  some  things  which  were  accomplished, 
and  some  which  were  yet  to  be  accomplished. 
Among  the  things  already  accomplished  were 
souls  gathered  "under  the  altar"  to  whom  white 
robes  were  given,  which  robes  are  evidently  the 
righteousness  of  saints.  (Rev.  7  :9,  13,  14.) 

But  we  are  told  that  the  "altar"  is  on  the 
earth,  and  the  blood,  "by  metonomy,"  represents 
"the  soul  of  the  martyr  as  crying,"  etc.  We  reply, 
that  the  altar  which  John  saw  was  not  on  the 
earth,  but  in  heaven. 

And  another  angel  came  and  stood  at  the  altar,  having 
a  golden  censor;  and  there  was  given  unto  him  much  in- 
cense, that  he  should  offer  it  with  the  prayers  of  all  saints 
upon  the  golden  altar  which  was  before  the  throne.— 
Rev.  8:3. 

In  Revelations  9 : 13,  "the  golden  altar"  is  said 
to  be  "before  God."  If  it  be  said  that  John  sim- 
ply saw  a  representation  of  souls  in  a  conscious 
state,  we  ask,  how  could  he  see  a  representation 
of  that  which  does  not  exist  ?  Please  remember 
that  these  souls  had  been  slain  and  were  not  yet 


130  THE  TRANSFIGURATION. 

resurrected.  When  we  see  a  panoramic  view  of 
some  city  or  place,  we  see  a  representation  of  that 
which  has  or  had  an  actual  existence.  But  this 
vision  was  evidently  a  clear,  spiritual  sight  of  the 
souls  of  the  redeemed  as  they  were  and  are  in  the 
intermediate  state.  The  vision,  in  kind,  was  like 
the  one  had  by  Stephen  when  he  saw  Jesus.  "Be- 
hold, I  see  the  heavens  opened,  ad  the  Son  of  Man 
standing  on  the  right  hand  of  God.  (Acts  7  :56.) 
Just  as  the  heavens,  the  Father  and  Son,  were  all 
there  to  be  seen,  so  were  "the  souls  of  them  that 
were  slain  resting  in  paradise  where  John  saw 
them  in  vision. 

And  after  six  days,  Jesus  taketh  Peter,  James  and  John 
his  brother,  and  bringeth  them  up  into  a  high  mountain 
apart,  And  was  transfigured  before  them:  and  his  face 
did  shine  as  the  sun,  and  his  raiment  was  white  as  the 
light.  And  behold,  there  appeared  unto  them  Moses  and 
Elias  talking  with  him.  Then  answered  Peter,  and  said 
unto  Jesus,  Lord,  it  is  good  for  us  to  be  here:  if  thou  wilt, 
let  us  make  here  three  tabernacles;  one  for  thee,  one  for 
Moses,  and  one  for  Elias.  While  he  yet  spake,  behold,  a 
bright  cloud  overshadowed  them;  and  behold,  a  voice  out 
of  the  cloud,  which  said,  This  is  my  beloved  Son,  in  whom 
I  am  well  pleased,  hear  ye  him.  And  when  the  disciples 
heard  it,  they  fell  on  their  face,  and  were  sore  afraid.  And 
Jesus  came  and  touched  them,  and  said,  Arise,  and  be  not 
afraid.  And  when  they  had  lifted  up  their  eyes,  they  saw 
no  man,  save  Jesus  only.  And  as  they  came  down  from 
the  mountain,  Jesus  charged  them,  saying,  Tell  the  vision 
to  no  man  until  the  Son  of  Man  be  risen  again  from  the 
dead.-Matt.  17:1-9. 

Mr.  Jones  undertakes  to  reconcile  th«  trans- 
figuration scenes  to  his  theory  in  the  following 
manner: 

Even  if  this  had  been  a  real  presence  of  Moses  and  Eli- 
jah it  would  not  prove  disembodied  consciousness,  for  we 
have  no  evidence  that  Elijah  ever  died.  2  Kings 2:11.  And 
Moses  may  have  had  his  long  sleep  interrupted  for  the 
special  occasion  (to  bear  witness  to  the  Messiah  of  whom 
he  had  formerly  spoken,  Acts  3:22),  and  may  afterwards 
have  gone  back  to  finish  his  slumber  in  that  sepulchre  of 
which  no  man  knoweth  to  this  day.  Deut.  34:6.  Just  as,  I 


JONES  ANSWERED.  131 

think,  we  have  reason  to  infer  that  Lazarus  also,  after  he 
had  by  his  resurrection  borne  witness  to  the  Messiahshipof 
Jesus,  returned  in  due  course  of  time  to  his  grave.  As  to 
the  nature  that  "dieth  no  more."  Christ  is  "the  first-fruits 
of  those  who  sleep."  1  Cor.  15:20,  (A.  B.  U.);  Rom.  6:9.  The 
transfiguration  scene,  however,  is  called  a  "vision,"  and 
this  word  is  used  as  differing  in  its  nature  from  a  present 
reality.— Matt.  17:9;  Acts  12:9.— "THANATOPSIS,"  p.  17. 

There  are  only  two  points  in  the  above  extract 
which  we  care  to  notice  at  present.  Mr.  Jones 
finds  it  necessary  in  order  to  turn  aside  Bible 
statements,  to  presume,  in  absence  of  all  proof, 
that  Moses  may  have  been  raised  to  mortality  and 
then  went  back  "to  finish  his  slumber  in  that  tomb 
of  which  no  man  knoweth  to  this  day."  If  we  are 
permitted  to  indulge  in  such  monstrous  presump- 
tions as  this,  in  order  to  support  a  chosen  doc- 
trine, or  turn  aside  proof  which  is  against  us,  then 
we  may  quite  easily  dispose  of  the  plainest  state- 
ments of  Holy  Writ,  and  in  the  same  manner  sup- 
port the  most  dangerous  and  heretical  doctrine  ever 
held  by  professed  Christians !  What  would  our 
opponents  say  if  we  were  to  indulge  in  such  pre- 
sumptions as  this  to  support  the  doctrine  of  im- 
mortality ?  No  better  evidence  of  weakness  could 
be  furnished. 

However,  if  the  presumption  is  not  sufficient, 
Mr.  Jones  thoughtfully  informs  the  reader  that 
the  " transfiguration  scene  is  called  a  'vision'  and 
this  word  is  used  as  differing  in  its  nature  from  a 
present  reality."  We  have  already  seen  that  the 
primary  meaning  of  vision  is  "the  act  of  seeing 
external  objects;  actual  sight."  Vision  is  often 
used  in  the  sense  of  "a  present  reality."  A  spirit- 
ual vision  is  a  spiritual  sight  of  things  as  they  are 
or  will  be.  It  was  necessary  that  the  eyes  of  Eli- 
sha's  servant  should  be  opened  that  he  might  see 
that  "the  mountain  was  full  of  horses  and  chari- 
ots of  fire  round  about  Elisha-"  (2  Kings  6:17.) 


132     VISIONS  SOMETIMES  PRESENT  REALITIES. 

Notice,  the  horses  and  chariots  were  there,  but 
the  young  man  was  not  in  a  condition  to  see  them 
till  his  eyes  had  been  touched  by  the  power  of 
God.  This  vision  was  a  present  reality. 

The  women  who  saw  and  talked  with  the 
angels  of  God  at  the  sepulchre  of  Jesus,  reported 
that  they  had  "seen  a  vision  of  angels."  (Luke  24 : 
1-7,  23.)  Zacharias  saw  and  conversed  with  the 
angel  Gabriel,  and  Luke  says,  "And  when  he 
came  out,  he  could  not  speak  unto  them  :  and  they 
perceived  that  he  had  seen  a  vision  in  the  temple." 
These  visions,  like  many  others,  were  present  real- 
ities. 

The  vision  of  transfiguration  in  the  mount, 
was  also  "a  present  reality."  Jesus,  Peter,  James 
and  John  were  really  there.  "A  bright  cloud" 
was  seen ;  the  voice  of  God  was  heard,  and  "there 
appeared  unto  them  Moses  and  Elias  talking  with 
him."  Peter  afterwards  refers  to  this  vision  in 
the  following  manner : 

•  For  we  have  not  followed  cunningly  devised  fables, 
when  we  made  known  unto  you  the  power  and  coming  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  but  were  eye-witnesses  of  his  maj- 
esty. For  he  received  from  God  the  Father  honor  and 
glory,  when  there  came  such  a  voice  to  him  from  the  excel- 
lent glory,  This  is  my  beloved  Son,  in  whom  I  am  well 
pleased.  And  this  voice  which  came  from  heaven  we  heard, 
when  we  were  with  him  in  the  holy  mount.— 2  Peter  1:16-18. 

They  saw  with  their  eyes,  and  heard  with  their 
ears,  and  hence  were  prepared  to  testify. 

Adventist  authors  make  an  argument  in  favor 
of  the  second  coming  of  Christ— that  it  will  be 
personal  and  literal — founded  on  the  word  "ap- 
pear" as  found  in  Heb.  9  :28. 

So  Christ  was  once  offered  to  bear  the  sins  of  many;  and 
unto  them  that  look  for  him  shall  he  appear  the  second 
time  without  sin  unto  salvation. 

They  give  us  Webster  and  Wocester,  and  the 
Bible  to  show  that  the  word  "appear"  indicates  the 
literal  and  personal  return  of  Jesus  Christ.  Very 


THE  WORD  APPEAR.  133 

well.  "And  behold  there  appeared  unto  them 
Moses  and  Elias  talking  with  him."  What  does 
the  word  "appear"  mean  as  used  in  this  passage? 
Moses  had  been  dead  for  nearly  fifteen  hun- 
dred years. 

So  Moses  the  servant  of  the  Lord  died  there  in  the  land 
of  Moab,  according  to  the  word  of  the  Lord.  And  he  bur- 
ied him  in  a  valley  in  the  land  of  Moab.  over  against  Beth- 
peor:  but  no  man  knoweth  of  his  sepulchre  unto  this  day. 
— Deut.  34:5,  6. 

Now  after  the  death  of  Moses,  the  servant  of  the  Lord, 
It  came  to  pass,  that  the  Lord  spake  unto  Joshua  the  son 
of  Nun,  Moses*  minister,  saying,  Moses  my  servant  is  dead: 
now  therefore  arise,  go  over  this  Jordan,  thou  and  all  this 
people,  unto  the  land  which  I  do  give  to  them,  even  to  the 
children  of  Israel.— Josh.  1: 1,  2. 

Christ  was  the  first  to  rise  to  immortality  ; 
and  the  claim  that  Moses  was  raised  to  a  condition 
of  mortality  in  order  to  bear  testimony  to  the 
mission  of  Christ,  is  a  monstrous  presumption, 
without  foundation  in  scripture  or  reason. 

But  now  is  Christ  risen  from  the  dead,  and  become  the 
first-fruits  of  them  that  slept.— 1  Oor.  15:  20. 

That  Christ  should  suffer,  and  that  he  should  be  the 
first  that  should  rise  from  the  dead,  and  should  shew  light 
unto  the  people,  and  to  the  Gentiles.— Acts  26: 23. 

And  from  Jesus  Christ,  who  is  the  faithful  Witness,  and 
the  First-begotten  of  the  dead,  and  the  Prince  of  the  kings 
of  the  earth.  Unto  him  that  loved  us,  and  washed  us  from 
our  sins  in  his  own  blood.— Kev.  1:5. 

The  Elias  who  appeared  with  Moses,  was  evi- 
dently John  the  Baptist,  as  shown  by  the  question 
of  the  disciples  and  the  answer  of  Jesus,  given  im- 
mediately after  the  transfiguration.  However, 
the  argument  is  the  same  if  we  confine  it  to  Moses. 

And  his  disciples  asked  him,  saying,  Why  then  say  the 
scribes  that  Elias  must  first  come?  And  Jesus  answered 
and  said  unto  them,  Elias  truly  shall  first  come  and  restore 
all  things:  But  I  say  unto  you,  That  Elias  is  come  already, 
and  they  knew  him  not,  but  have  done  unto  him  whatso- 
ever they  listed;  likewise  shall  also  the  Son  of  Man  suffer 
of  them.  Then  the  disciples  understood  that  he  spake 
unto  them  of  John  the  Baptist.— Matt.  17: 10-13. 


134  CHRISTIAN  ARMORY. 

In  the  Christian  Armory  for  April  30,  1891,  and 
in  answer  to  query  concerning  the  transfiguration, 
we  have  the  following  statements  by  the  associate 
editor : 

In  response  to  "Query"  (contained  in  the  April  2nd 
issue  of  "The  Armory.")  "If  the  first  five  verses  of  the 
ninth  chapter  of  Mark,  record  a  literal  manifestation  of 
the  kingdom,  was  Moses  there  mortal,  if  mortal,  was  this  a 
true  epitome  of  the  kingdom  ?"  We  would  say,  it  was.  A 
vision,  is  an  appearance;  sometimes  real,  and  sometimes 
unreal,  according  to  the  nature  of  the  occasion.  The  word 
vision  in  Matt.  17:9,  is  from  the  Greek  term  "horama,"  signi- 
fying, "A  sight."  Moses  was  there  as  mortal  as  ever: 
brought  there  (from  the  vale  in  the  land  of  Moab)  by  Mich- 
ael the  archangel,  who,  (when  he  went  to  Moab  after  him) 
had  a  dispute  with  the  Devil,  who  desired  to  retain  him 
(Moses)  captive  until  the  time.  Matt.  8:29;  Jude  9.  Elijah 
was  there,  also  mortal  as  well  as  Christ,  Peter,  James  and 
John.  All  six  were  mortal.  That  it  was  a  real  affair  we 
find  proof  of  in  the  nature  of  their  discussion,  i.  e.,  the 
atonement.  Peter  bear  record  of  the  reality  of  the  scene, 
saying  it  was  not  a  fable;  "we  make  known  unto  you 
the  power  and  coming  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  .... 
were  eye  witnesses  of  his  majesty,  for  he  received  from 
God  the  Father  honor  and  glory,  when  there  came  such  a 
voice  to  him  from  the  excellent  glory,  This  is  my  beloved 
Son,  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased:  hear  ye  him. 

Here  it  is  frankly  admitted  that  the  vision  was 
a  reality  in  direct  opposition  to  the  statement  of 
Mr.  Jones,  but  in  harmony  with  Mr.  Jones,  the 
learned  editor  affirms  that  Moses  was  raised  to 
mortality.  Where  is  the  proof  of  this  ?  Matt.  8 : 29, 
and  Jude  9  are  cited.  The  first  is  the  statement 
of  the  demons  to  Jesus. 

What  have  we  to  do  with  thee,  Jesus,  thou  Son  of  God  ? 
art  thou  come  hither  to  torment  us  before  the  time  ? 

There  is  a  vast  difference  between  these  de- 
mons objecting  to  being  punished  before  the  judg- 
ment and  the  Devil  trying  to  prevent  the  resur- 
rection of  Moses.  Why  should  he  object  to  his 
resurrection  inasmuch  as  he  was  to  be  put  back  in 
the  grave  at  once  ?  But  Mr.  Jones  says  Moses  was 
"to  bear  witness  to  the  Messiah."  Where  is  the 


POINTS  OF  THE  TRANSFIGURATION.  135 

proof  ?  The  very  thing  which  our  opponents  de- 
mand of  us  !  Where  is  the  testimony  which  Moses 
gave  in  the  mount?  It  can  not  be  found  in  the 
New  Testament.  There  is  just  as  much  proof 
that  Elias  bore  witness  to  the  Messiah  as  there  is 
that  Moses  did.  Both  talked  with  him  "and 
spake  of  his  decease  which  he  should  accomplish  at 
Jerusalem,"  but  we  are  not  told  what  either  one  of 
them  said.  As  to  the  passage  from  Jude  it  simply 
says,  in  an  incidental  way,  that  "Michael,  the 
archangel,"  contended  with  the  devil  and  disputed 
"about  the  body  of  Moses."  When,  and  for  what 
purpose  this  dispute  took  place,  Jude  does  nob  say. 
However,  it  is  probable,  we  think,  that  the  dispute 
occurred  either  at  the  time  of  Moses'  death,  or 
when  many  of  the  saints  arose  after  the  resurrec- 
tion of  Christ.  (Matt.  27  : 52,  53.) 

We  note  a  few  points  and  then  pass  on. 

1.  The  vision  was  a  grand  reality.     Jesus, 
three  of  his  apostles,  Moses  and  Elias,  were  all 
there. 

2.  It  is  quite  evident  that  Moses  and  Elias 
were  immortal.     It  required  a  marked,  spiritual 
change  in  Jesus  himself,  in  order  that  he  might 
stand  in  their  presence  and  talk  with  them.    He 
"was  transfigured  before  them;  and  his  face  did 
shine  as  the  sun,  and  his  raiment  was  white  as  the 
light."    The  strong  effect  had  upon  the  disciples 
favors  the  claim  that  Moses  and  Elias  were  im- 
mortal. 

The  statement  of  Luke  is  convincing  and  con- 
clusive. 

And  behold,  there  talked  with  him  two  men,  which 
were  Moses  and  Elias;  Who  appeared  in  glory,  and  spake 
of  his  decease  which  he  should  accomplish  at  Jerusalem.— 
Luke  9:30,  31. 

Jesus  received  "glory"  temporarily,  at  that 
time,  because  he  was  in  the  mortal  state ;  but  we 


136  THE  WICKED  CONSCIOUS. 

are  not  at  liberty  to  presume  this  of  Moses  and 
Elias,  who  had  passed  within  the  veil. 

3.  Moses  had  been  dead  for  nearly  fifteen 
hundred  years.  Christ  was  the  first  to  "rise  from 
the  dead"  to  a  state  of  immortality.  The  idea 
that  Moses  was  raised  to  mortality  is  contrary  to 
right  reason  and  without  foundation  in  the  word. 
Therefore,  Moses  was  a  conscious  man  between 
death  and  the  resurrection.  And  if  Moses  was 
conscious  in  the  intermediate  state,  so  are  all 
other  men,  for  there  exists  nothing  with  which 
we  are  acquainted,  which  would  make  Moses,  in 
this  respect,  an  exception  to  the  rule  governing 
other  men. 

We  have  now  shown  by  a  number  of  valid 
proofs  that  the  righteous  are  conscious  between 
death  and  the  resurrection ;  and  will  now  proceed 
to  prove  that  the  wicked  also  live  in  a  condition 
of  conscious  existence  in  the  intermediate  state. 

For  if  God  spared  not  the  angels  that  sinned,  but  cast 
them  down  to  hell,  and  delivered  them  into  chains  of  dark- 
ness, to  be  reserved  unto  judgment;  The  Lord  knoweth 
how  to  deliver  the  godly  out  of  temptations,  and  to  reserve 
the  unjust  unto  the  day  of  judgment  to  be  punished.— 2 
Peter  2: 4,  9. 

And  the  angels  which  kept  not  their  first  estate,  but 
left  their  own  habitation,  he  hath  reserved  In  everlast- 
ing chains  under  darkness  unto  the  judgment  of  the  great 
day.— Jude  6. 

The  word  "reserve"  comes  from  the  Greek  tereo, 
which  literally  means  "to  keep."  Notice  that  the 
"unjust"  are  reserved  for  punishment  as  well  as 
the  fallen  angels,  or  demons.  Now  the  fallen 
angels  are  reserved  in  darkness  with  a  conscious- 
ness of  their  guilt;  and  so  it  will  be  with  the 
wicked.  The  Revised  Version  renders  2  Peter 
2 : 9  as  follows : 

The  Lord  knoweth  how  to  deliver  the  godly  out  of  temp- 
tation, and  to  keep  the  unrighteous  under  punishment 
unto  the  day  of  judgment. 


RICH  MAN  AND  LAZARUS.  137 

It  will  hardly  do  to  claim  that  this  punish- 
ment is  natural  death,  for  it  is  applied  to  the 
wicked  in  contradistinction  to  the  righteous; 
whereas  the  righteous  die  and  remain  dead  during 
the  intermediate  state  as  well  as  the  wicked.  The 
latter,  however,  are  thrown  into  a  kind  of  spirit- 
ual jail,  or  prison,  to  await  the  day  of  judgment. 

There  was  a  certain  rich  man,  which  was  clothed  in 
purple  and  fine  linen,  and  fared  sumptuously  every  day: 
And  there  was  a  certain  beggar  named  Lazarus  which  was 
laid  at  his  gate  full  of  sores,  And  desiring  to  be  .fed  with 
the  crumbs  which  fell  from  the  rich  man's  table:  moreover 
the  dogs  came  and  licked  his  sores.  And  it  came  to  pass 
that  the  beggar  died,  and  was  carried  by  the  angels  into 
Abraham's  bosom:  the  rich  man  also  died,  and  was 
buried:  And  in  hell  he  lifted  up  his  eyes,  being  in  tor- 
ments, and  seeth  Abraham  afar  off,  and  Lazarus  in  his 
bosom.  And  he  cried  and  said,  Father  Abraham,  have 
mercy  on  me,  and  send  Lazarus,  that  he  may  dip  the  tip  of 
his  finger  in  water,  and  cool  my  tongue;  for  I  am  tor- 
mented in  this  flame.  But  Abraham  said.  Son,  remember 
that  thou  in  thy  lifetime  receivest  thy  good  things,  and 
likewise  Lazarus  evil  things:  but  now  he  is  comforted,  and 
thou  art  tormented.  And  beside  all  this,  between  us  and 
you  there  is  a  great  gulf  fixed:  so  that  they  which  would 
pass  from  hence  to  you  can  not;  neither  can  they  pass  to 
us,  that  would  come  from  thence.  Then  he  said,  I  pray 
thee  therefore,  father,  that  thou  wouldest  send  him  to  my 
father's  house:  For  I  have  five  brethren;  that  he  may  tes- 
tify unto  them,  lest  they  also  come  into  this  place  of  tor- 
ment. Abraham  saith  unto  him,  They  have  Moses  and  the 
prophets;  let  them  hear  them.  And  he  said,  Nay,  father 
Abraham:  but  if  one  went  unto  them  from  the  dead,  they 
will  repent.  And  he  said  unto  him,  If  they  hear  not  Moses 
and  the  prophets,  neither  will  they  be  persuaded,  though 
one  rose  from  the  dead.— Luke  16:19-31. 

Admit  that  this  is  a  parable  and  the  proof  for 
conscious  existence  after  death  still  remains. 

In  "ABBOTT'S  DICTIONARY  OF  RELIGIOUS 
KNOWLEDGE,"  we  have  an  excellent  article  on 
parables  from  which  we  present  short  extracts. 

There  are  three  questions  respecting  the  parables 
which  properly  require  consideration  in  this  article.  1st. 
What  is  a  parable  ?  2nd.  What  is  the  object  of  the  para- 


138  OP  PARABLES. 

ble— and,  particularly,  what  was  the  reason  that  Christ 
employed  this  form  of  instruction  so  extensively  ?  and  3rd. 
Are  there  any  general  rules  for  the  interpretation  of  the 
parable— if  so,  what  are  they  ? 

But  in  the  parable  there  is  never  any  transgression  of 
the  laws  of  nature.  Christ  never  presents  to  us  any  speak- 
ing or  reasoning  beasts;  and  we  should  be  at  once  con- 
scious of  an  unfitness  in  his  so  doing."  When  animals 
are  introduced,  as  in  the  parable  of  the  Good  Shepherd 
they  are  introduced  not  as  types  of  humanity,  nor  as 
though  endowed  with  human  reason,  but  as  animals. 

To  sum  up  all,  then,  the  parable  differs  from  the  fable, 
moving  as  it  does  in  the  spiritual  world,  and  never  trans- 
gressing the  actual  and  natural  order  of  things;  from  the 
proverb,  inasmuch  as  it  is  more  fully  carried  out,  and  is 
not  merely  accidentally  and  occasionally,  but  necessarily 
figurative;  from  the  allegory,  comparing  as  it  does  one 
thing  with  another,  but  at  the  same  time,  preserving  them 
apart,  and  not  transferring,  as  does  the  allegory,  the  prop- 
erties and  qualities  and  relations  of  one  to  the  other. 

A  parable,  then,  is  a  fictitious  narrative,  true  to  nature, 
yet  undeceptive,  veiling  a  spiritual  truth  under  a  symbol, 
for  the  purpose  of  conveying  it  to  min^s  reluctant  or  indif- 
ferent. It  differs  from  the  proverb  in  being  a  narrative, 
from  the  fable  in  being  true  to  nature,  from  the  myth  in 
being  undeceptive,  from  the  allegory  in  that  it  veils  the 
spiritual  truth. 

We  would  reasonably  expect  to  find  the  para- 
ble, as  used  by  Jesus,  the  most  perfect  figure  of 
speech,  and  used  in  the  most  perfect  manner. 
The  object  of  the  parable  must  not  be  abstruse 
and  far-fetched,  but  must  appear  upon  its  face, 
inasmuch  as  its  leading  purpose  is  to  benefit  those 
who  are  slow  to  receive  the  truth.  The  disciples 
once  said  to  Jesus, 

Why  speakest  thou  unto  them  in  parables  ?  He  an- 
swered and  said  unto  them,  Because  it  is  given  unto  you  to 
know  the  mysteries  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  but  to  them 
it  is  not  given.— Matt.  13:10, 11. 

Jesus  evidently  talked  to  them  in  parables  be- 
cause that  through  that  mode  of  teaching  he 
would  be  able  to  inculcate  more  truth  than  in  the 
ordinary  way. 


TEACHINGS  OF  THIS  PARABLE.  139 

Unto  you  it  is  given  to  know  the  mystery  of  the  king- 
dom of  God,  but  unto  them  that  are  without,  all  these  things 
are  done  in  parables.— Mark  4:11. 

What,  then,  are  the  obvious  teachings  of  the 
parable  quoted  above  ?  A  stern  rebuke  against 
selfishness,  arrogance  and  pride ;  a  clear  revela- 
tion of  the  grand  truth  that  when  we  pass  within 
the  veil,  the  justice  of  God  controls,  rather  than 
the  inequalities  and  injustice  of  man  ;  that  death 
is  a  great  change,  but  not  an  end  to  conscious 
existence. 

It  plainly  belongs  to  the  very  scope  and  design  of  this 
parable  to  show  what  becomes  of  the  souls  of  good  and  bad 
men  after  death. — Bishop  Bull. 

The  question  whether  this  is  a  history  or  a  parable  is 
not  necessary  to  discuss.  In  either  mode  the  scripture 
teaches  truth.  Important  and  often  vital  truth.  The 
chief  difference  is  that  one  mode  asserts  what  has  occur- 
red, the  other,  "what  does  occur."— Prof.  Bartlett. 

In  any  aspect  Christ  could  not  have  lent  his  sanction 
to  falsehood  and  imposture.  As  Alford  fitly  remarks,  "In 
conforming  himself  to  the  ordinary  language  current  on 
these  subjects,  it  is  impossible  to  suppose  that  he  whose 
essence  is  truth  could  have  assumed  as  existing  anything 
which  does  not  exist.  It  would  destroy  the  truth  of  our 
Lord's  sayings,  if  we  could  conceive  him  to  have 
used  popular  language  which  did  not  point  at  truth.  And, 
accordingly,  where  such  language  was  current,  we  find  him 
not  adopting,  but  protesting  against  it.  (See  Matt.  15:5,  6.) 

Therefore,  with  Alford,  Trench,  Wordsworth,  and  the 
best  commentators,  we  take  the  passage  relative  to  the 
rich  man  and  Lazarus  as  teaching,  at  all  events,  two  things; 
first,  that  the  soul  of  the  man  is  conscious  after  death;  and 
secondly,  that,  according  to  its  moral  character,  it  goes 
either  into  a  place  of  happiness  and  repose  or  into  one  of  dis- 
quiet and  misery.  These  two  thoughts  not  only  lie  upon  the 
surface  of  the  narrative,but  they  also  constitute  its  very  life 
and  essence.— "DISCREPANCIES  OF  THE  BIBLE,"  pp.  190. 191. 

When  we  consider  the  significance  of  "hell," 
or  hades,  and  ''Abraham's  bosom,"  as  understood 
and  used  among  the  Jews  in  the  time  of  Christ, 
the  proof  of  this  text  in  favor  of  conscousness  af- 
ter death,  becomes  almost  irresistible. 


140  ABRAHAM'S  BOSOM. 

"ABRAHAM'S  BOSOM."— This  phrase,  used  in  Luke  16:22, 
as  a  description  of  heaven,  takes  its  significance  from  the 
practice  customary  in  the  Orient,  at  the  time  of  Christ,  of 
reclining  on  couches  at  meals  in  such  a  way  that  each 
guest  rested  upon  the  bosom  of  his  left  hand  neighbor.  This 
position  with  respect  to  the  master  of  the  house  was  one  of 
especial  honor,  and  only  occupied  by  dear  friends.  To  lie 
in  Abraham's  bosom,  thus  became  a  metaphor  expressive 
of  the  highest  spiritual  condition  and  felicity,  and,  as  such, 
was  employed  by  Christ  in  contrasting  the  condition  of 
Lazarus  in  the  other  world  with  that  of  the  rich  man  who 
had  his  good  things  in  his  life  time.— DICTIONARY  OF  RELIG- 
IOUS KNOWLEDGE,  by  Lyman  Abbott. 

Messrs.  Sheldon  and  Grant  claim  that  this 
parable  represents  the  Jews  and  Gentiles,  but  is  no 
proof  of  consciousness  after  death !  Mr.  Jones 
thinks  it  may  be  a  parable,  but  he  is  inclined  to 
the  belief  that  "it  is  a  prophecy,  calling  'those 
things  which  be  not  as  though  they  were.'  (Rom. 
4  : 17),  and  pointing  to  Jewish  affairs  at  the  second 
advent  of  the  Messiah." 

L.  C.  Collins,  in  "HADES  AND  SHEOL,  AND 
THE  RICH  MAN  AND  LAZARUS,"  pp.  29,  30,  gives  us 
his  view  of  the  true  import  and  purpose  of  the  par- 
able. 

How,  then,  are  we  to  understand  this  Scripture,  and 
what  are  its  teachings  and  design  ?  It  should  be  regarded 
In  the  light  of  a  parable,  or  Fictitious  narrative,  founded 
upon  the  belief  of  the  Pharisees  touching  the  state  of  the 
dead  in  hades.  And  it  was  given  in  personal  reproof  to 
them  for  their  covetousness  and  most  insulting  derision  of 
Christ's  teaching  that  a  man  "cannot  serve  God  and  mam- 
mon." He  takes  these  Pharisees  upon  ther  own  ground  of 
argument  and  belief,  and  most  adroitly,  in  parabolic  form, 
turns  that  very  belief  in  withering  personal  reproof  upon 
them  for  their  worldliness  and  sin. 

Mr.  Collins  severely  criticises  the  speculative 
and  far-fetched  interpretations  of  his  brethren, 
agreeing  with  them,  however,  in  this,  if  nothing 
more,  that  it  does  not  teach  man's  consciousness 
after  death.  In  this,  Elder  Collins  is  inconsist- 
ent. He  justly  condemns  the  speculative  and 


ELDER  COLLIN'S  COMMENT.  141 

dangerous  work  of  his  brethren,  but  just  as  soon 
as  he  attempts  to  set  aside  the  force  of  the  text  in 
favor  of  conscious  existence  after  death,  he  neces- 
sarily falls  into  the  same  error.  Here  is  what  he 
says  of  the  assumed  positions  of  Sheldon,  Grant, 
and  others. 

In  the  light  of  a  parable,  then,  what  are  we  to  under- 
stand by  it?  Very  many  take  the  ground  that  it  was  ut- 
tered by  our  Lord  to  illustrate  the  character  and  history 
of  the  Jews  as  connected  with  the  Gentiles,  the  death  and 
torment  of  the  rich  man  denoting  the  rejection,  the  curse, 
and  misery  of  the  Jews,  because  of  their  unbelief,  and  Laz- 
arus in  Abraham's  bosom  denoting  the  admission  of  the 
Gentiles  into  Gospel  blessings.  This  view  to  myself  and  very 
many  others  has  never  been  satisfactory.  To  the  minds  of 
many  it  appears  strained,  far-fetched  and  unnatural;  and 
seems  more  like  an  ingenious  device  to  get  rid  of  a  diffi- 
culty, than  a  clear  exposition  of  Bible  truth.  Let  us  exam- 
ine the  application,  and  see  if  it  will  bear  criticism.  Who 
are  the  five  brethren  that  fill  so  important  a  place  in  the 
parable?  We  are  told,  that  as  the  rich  man  denotes  the 
one  house  of  Israel,  composed  of  the  two  tribes  of  Benja- 
min and  Judah,  so  the  five  brethren  represent  the  other 
house  or  the  ten  tribes.  As  the  rich  man  represents  the 
two,  so  the  five  brethren  represent  the  ten.  Most  admira- 
ble mathematics,  but  very  lame  theology.  Now  is  there 
not  something  here  very  remarkable?  for  according  to  this 
interpretation,  the  parable  is  really  a  prophecy  extending 
throughout  the  gospel  age.  But  where  now  are  these  ten 
tribes?  They  have  no  existence,  and  have  not  had  since 
even  before  Christ's  time.  They  are  called  the  "lost  ten 
tribes."  Those  long  in  search  of  them  have  found  them 
sometimes  in  the  North  American  Indians,  or  in  the  Anglo 
Saxons;  sometimes  in  one  place,  and  sometimes  in  another. 
Certain  it  is  that  they  left  home  before  ever  the  parable 
was  uttered,  and  have  never  been  found  at  their  "father's 
house"  since;  although  the  parable  assures  us  that  they 
are  there  still!  Neither  is  there  a  people  on  the  face  of  the 
earth,  yet  retaining  "Moses  and  the  prophets,"  to  answer  to 
them.  Then  again  in  the  parable,  the  rich  man  is  very 
anxious  for  their  conversion,  that  they  should  "repent," 
and  "believe;"  but  we  have  never  been  aware  that  the 
Jews  are  anxious  to  have  the  ten  tribes  brought  into  the 
gospel  covenant. 

Our  position,  we  think,  is  plain,  and  we  give 
the  reader  the  benefit  of  seeing  it  in  juxtaposition 


142  HIGHLY  CONSCIOUS  STATE. 

with  the  positions  of  our  opponents.  It  should  be 
borne  in  mind  that  Abraham,  the  rich  man  and 
Lazarus,  were  all  dead,  and  are  represented  in  a 
highly  conscious  state  before  their  resurrection. 
The  objection  that  hades  is  not  a  place  of  punish- 
ment, etc.,  will  be  noticed  in  another  place. 

To  the  end  that,  none  of  all  the  trees  by  the  waters,  ex- 
alt themselves  for  their  height,  neither  shoot  up  their  top 
among  the  thick  boughs,  neither  their  trees  stand  up  in 
their  height,  all  that  drink  water:  for  they  are  all,  deliv- 
ered unto  death,  to  the  nether  parts  of  the  earth,  in  the 
midst  of  the  children  of  men,  with  them  that  go  down  to 
the  pit,  Thus  saith  the  Lord  God;  In  the  day  when  he 
went  down  to  the  grave  I  caused  a  mourning:  I  covered 
the  deep  for  him,  and  I  restrained  the  floods  thereof,  and 
the  great  waters  were  stayed;  and  I  caused  Lebanon  to 
mourn  for  him.  and  all  the  trees  of  the  field  fainted  for 
him.  I  made  the  nations  to  shake  at  the  sound  of  his  fall, 
when  I  cast  him  down  to  hell  with  them  that  descend  into 
the  pit;  and  all  the  trees  of  Eden,  the  choice  and  best  of 
Lebanon,  and  all  that  drink  water  shall  be  comforted  in 
the  nether  parts  of  the  earth.  They  also  went  down  into 
hell  with  him,  unto  them  that  be  slain  with  the  sword;  and 
they  that  were  his  arm,  that  dwell  under  his  shadow  in  the 
midst  of  the  heathen.  To  whom  art  thou  thus  like  in  glory 
and  in  greatness  among  the  trees  of  Eden?  yet  shalt  thou 
be  brought  down  with  the  trees  of  Eden  unto  the  nether 
parts  of  the  earth;  thou  shalt  lie  in  the  midst  of  the  uncir- 
cumcised  with  them  that  be  slain  by  the  sword.  This  is 
Pharaoh  and  all  his  multitude  saith  the  Lord  God.— Ezekiel 
31:14-18. 

There  be  the  princes  of  the  north,  all  of  them,  and  all 
the  Zidonians.  which  are  gone  down  with  the  slain;  with 
their  terror  they  are  ashamed  of  their  might:  and  they  lie 
uncircumcised  with  them  that  be  slain  by  the  sword,  and 
bear  their  shame  with  them  that  go  down  to  the  pit.  Pha- 
raoh shall  see  them,  and  shall  be  comforted  over  all  his 
multitude,  even  Pharaoh  and  all  his  army  slain  by  the 
sword,  saith  the  Lord  God.  For  I  have  caused  my  terror 
in  the  land  of  the  living;  and  he  shall  be  laid  in  the  midst 
of  the  uncircumcised  with  them  that  are  slain  with  the 
sword,  even  Pharaoh  and  all  his  multitude  saith  the  Lord 
God.— Ezekiel  32:  30-32. 

An  attempt  is  made  to  turn  aside  these  plain 
evidences  by  the  claim  that  they  prove  the  con- 


THE  GRAVE  AND  PIT.  143 

sciousness  of  "trees"  as  much  as  that  of  men.  We 
reply  that  "trees"  is  used  metaphorically  to  repre- 
sent men,  as  they  are  in  other  places  in  the  Bible. 
Judges  9  : 7-14 ;  Isa.  10 : 18,  19 ;  Jude  12.  A  proph- 
ecy or  narrative  may  be  literal  and  yet  contain 
figures.  The  closing  sentences  of  the  above  scrip- 
tures form  the  key  to  the  other  statements,  and 
prove  our  position  to  be  correct. 

This  is  Pharaoh  and  all  his  multitude,  saith  the  Lord 
God. 

And  he  shall  be  laid  in  the  midst  of  the  uncircumcised 
with  them  that  are  slain  with  the  sword,  even  Pharaoh 
and  all  his  multitude,  saith  the  Lord  God. 

"Pit"  comes  from  the  Hebrew  beer,  and  liter- 
ally means  "a  pit  or  well."  The  same  place  is  called 
the  "nether  parts  of  the  earth."  Nether  comes 
from  the  Hebrew  tachti,  and  literally  means  "low- 
er, under."  Now  the  grave  is  not  in  the  lower  or 
under  parts  of  the  earth,  but,  rather,  in  the  upper 
and  higher  parts :  therefore  reference  is  not  had 
to  the  grave. 

And  it  shall  come  to  pass  in  that  day,  that  the  Lord 
shall  punish  the  host  of  the  high  ones  that  are  on  high,  and 
the  kings  of  the  earth  upon  the  earth.  And  they  shall  be 
gathered  together,  as  prisoners  are  gathered  in  the  pit, 
and  shall  be  shut  up  in  the  prison,  and  after  many  days 
shall  they  be  visited.— Isa.  24:21,  22. 

Carefully  read  the  whole  chapter  which  de- 
scribes in  a  vivid  manner  the  time  of  general  dis- 
aster and  death  that  shall  come  upon  the  inhab- 
itants of  the  earth  just  previous  to  the  second 
advent  of  Jesus  Christ.  The  kings  and  high  ones 
are  to  be  punished  with  destruction  and  death  ; 
after  which  they  will  be  "shut  up  in  the  prison, 
and  after  many  days  shall  they  be  visited."  It 
may  be  claimed  that  they  will  be  punished  with 
death,  and  "visited"  at  the  resurrection ;  but,  to 
us,  the  language  implies  that  after  this  punish- 
ment and  imprisonment  a  means  of  release  will  be 
offered.  This  thought  is  in  harmony  with  the 


144  PRISON  AND  PIT. 

character  of  God  and  the  aggregate  statements  of 
the  text ;  but  the  idea  that  God  will  visit  them 
and  raise  them  from  the  dead,  for  the  sole  and  in- 
evitable purpose  of  reducing  them  to  ashes  by  the 
means  of  literal  fire,  does  violence  to  the  text  and 
is  opposed  to  the  revealed  character  of  God. 
More  than  this,  the  "prison"  and  "pit,"  as  we 
shall  presently  see,  are  sometimes  used  to  denote 
the  abode  of  living,  conscious  beings  in  the  spirit 
state. 

For  Christ  also  hath  once  suffered  for  sins,  the  just  for 
the  unjust,  that  he  might  bring  us  to  God,  being  put  to 
death  in  the  flesh,  but  quickened  by  the  spirit.  By  which 
also  he  went  and  preached  unto  the  spirits  in  prison; 
Which  sometime  were  disobedient,  when  once  the  long-suf- 
fering of  God  waited  in  the  days  of  Noah,  while  the  ark 
was  a  preparing,  wherein  few,  that  is,  eight  souls,  were 
saved  by  water.— 1  Peter  3:18-20. 

We  regret  being  under  the  necessity  of  stating 
our  conviction  that  many,  very  many,  who  are 
firm  believers  in  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  are 
hindered  and  prevented  from  properly  using  the 
invincible  statements  of  this  text,  by  the  creeds 
which  they  have  adopted.  And,  as  we  might  ex- 
pect, mortal-soulists  quote  their  words  to  help 
them  turn  aside  the  force  of  the  text. 

Mr.  Jones  brings  the  theory  we  oppose  quite 
fully  before  the  reader  in  the  following  exegesis: 

Persons  in  the  flesh  and  blood  nature  are  called  "souls" 
in  the  very  next  verse — "eight  souls  were  saved  by  water." 
And  John  is  evidently  alluding  to  false  teachers  in  flesh 
and  blood  when  he  says,  "Believe  not  every  spirit,  but  try 
the  spirits  whether  they  are  of  God:  because  many  false 
prophets  are  gone  out  into  the  world.  1  John  4:1.  It  is  ap- 
propriate to  speak  of  Antediluvian  spirits  as  "in  prison." 
because  persons  in  an  ignorant  and  sinful  state  are  called 
"prisoners,"  and  their  enlightenment  and  conversion  is 
"the  opening  of  the  prison  to  them  that  are  bound."  Isa. 
43:7;  61:1.  Certainly  it  does  not  mean  that  Christ  tried  to 
convert  and  save  disembodied  and  wicked  spirits  in  hell, 
for  there  is  no  conversion  or  repentance  after  death.  Be- 
sides, none  but  Antediluvian  sinners  are  mentioned;  why 


LIMITED  VIEW.  145 

think  he  would  preach  to  them  any  more  than  to  other  dis- 
embodied spirits,  if  they  were  all  in  hell  together  ?  Peter 
specifies  the  people  before  the  flood  because  he  is  showing  a 
comparison  between  the  ministry  through  Noah  and  that 
through  the  Apostles,  between  the  destruction  which  fell 
upon  the  disobedient  of  that  dispensation  and  that  which 
will  soon  fall  upon  the  disobedient  of  this.  Noah  was  a 
"preacher  of  righteousness,"  and  the  Spirit  in  him  and 
other  prophets  is  called  "the  Spirit  of  Christ.  1  Peter  1:11; 
2  Peter  2:5.  And  that  Peter  is  speaking  of  the  Antediluvi- 
ans in  a  somewhat  figurative  strain  is  evident  from  his 
words  "the  like  figure,"  in  verse  21.  Now,  when  saying  that 
Christ  "in"  the  Spirit  "went  and  preached"  to  those  Ante- 
diluvians, I  suppose  he  is  using  a  highly  figurative  expres- 
sion, somewhat  as  when  it  is  said  that  Levi,  before  his 
birth,  paid  tithes  "in  Abraham"  to  Melchisedec.  Heb.  7:9, 
10.  Here  is  Adam  Clarke's  comment  on  the  subject,— "The 
punishment  was  delayed  to  see  if  they  would  repent;  and 
the  long-suffering  of  God  waited  120  years,  which  were 
granted  to  them  for  this  purpose;  during  which  time,  as 
criminals  tried  and  convicted,  they  are  represented  as  be- 
ing in  prison,  detained  under  the  arrest  of  divine  justice, 
which  waited  either  for  their  repentance  or  the  expiration 
of  the  respite,  that  the  punishment  pronounced  might  be 
inflicted.  There  is  no  ground  to  believe  that  the  text 
speaks  of  Christ's  going  to  hell  to  preach  the  gospel  to  the 
damned;  or  His  going  to  some  feigned  place  where  the 
souls  of  the  patriarchs  were  detained,  to  whom  he 
preached,  and  whom  he  delivered  from  that  place  and  took 
with  him  to  paradise. 

Mr.  Jones  thinks  it  "certainly  .  .  .  does 
not  mean  that  Christ  tried  to  convert  and  save  dis- 
embodied and  wicked  spirits  in  hell,"  and  gives  as 
a  reason,  "for  there  is  no  conversion  or  repentance 
after  death."  Here  we  have  the  unproved  opinion 
of  Mr.  Jones  as  the  basis  for  an  important  and 
leading  conclusion  !  And  yet,  these  are  the  peo- 
ple who  are  constantly  asking  us  for  proof — the 
direct  and  positive  statements  of  the  word  !  Does 
it  necessarily  follow  that  because  souls,  or  spirits, 
are  unfit  for  paradise,  and  need  to  be  committed 
to  the  "prison"  or  "pit,"  that  they  will  always  re- 
main wicked  ?  What  a  limited  view  is  that 
which  says,  in  effect,  that  without  regard  to  our 


146  COMPREHENSIVE  VIEW. 

opportunities  here,  death  seals  our  fate  for  the 
endless  ages  of  eternity !  There  can  be  no  devel- 
opment, no  reformation  after  death  !  What  then 
will  become  of  the  countless  millions  who  have 
neither  accepted  nor  rejected  the  gospel  in  this 
life  ?  How  can  they  be  saved  without  the  gospel, 
and  how  can  they  be  permanently  and  finally  cast 
off  when  they  have  never  rejected  God's  truth  ? 

The  gospel  "is  the  power  of  God  unto  salva- 
tion to  every  one  that  believeth ;"  (Rom.  1 : 16) 
but  what  right  have  you  or  we  to  say  that  its 
work  is  entirely  limited  to  this  life?  Shall  the 
finite  limit  the  work  of  the  infinite?  Shall  we 
place  bounds  for  him?  saying,  "Thus  far  shalt 
thou  come,  but  no  farther."  The  angel  of  the 
Lord  who  announced  the  birth  of  the  Savior  said 
the  "good  tidings  of  great  joy"  should  "be  to  all 
people;"  and  yet,  how  many,  very  many,  have  died 
without  ever  having  heard  the  gospel. 

"But,"  we  are  told,  "there  can  be  no  pardon 
for  sin  after  death."  Yes  ;  but  who  told  us  ?  and 
by  what  authority  did  they  thus  speak  ? 

Wherefore  I  say  unto  you,  All  manner  of  sin  and  blas- 
phemy shall  be  forgiven  unto  men:  but  the  blasphemy 
against  the  Holy  Ghost  shall  not  be  forgiven  unto 
men.  And  whosoever  speaketh  a  word  against 
the  Son  of  man,  it  shall  be  forgiven  him;  but  who- 
soever speaketh  against  the  Holy  Ghost,  it  shall  not  be  for- 
given him,  neither  in  this  world,  neither  in  the  world  to 
come.— Matt.  12:31,  32. 

Here  is  a  sin  of  an  extraordinary  character  for 
which,  Jesus  says,  there  is  no  forgiveness,  "neith- 
er in  this  world,  neither  in  the  world  to  come." 
Thus,  by  implication,  it  is  plainly  stated  that  an 
other  sin*,  under  proper  conditions,  of  course,  may 
be  forgiven  unto  men,  both  in  "this  world,"  and 
"in  the  world  to  come." 

"Besides,"  says  Mr.  Jones,  "none  but  Antedi- 
luvian sinners  are  mentioned ;  why  think  he  would 


LEADING  POINTS  NOTED.  147 

preach  to  them  any  more  than  to  other  disembod- 
ied spirits,  if  they  were  all  in  hell  together  ?  " 

We  reply  that  there  is  not  an  intimation  in 
the  text  that  Jesus  preached  to  none  else,  or  that 
the  gospel  will  not  be  preached  to  all  who  are 
found  in  similar  conditions ;  but  we  have  already 
seen  that  those  who  are  destroyed  at  the  end  of 
the  world,  as  the  Antediluvians  were,  are  to  be 
"shut  up  in  the  prison,  and  after  many  days" 
they  are  to  "be  visited."  Does  Mr.  Jones  need  to 
be  informed  that  but  a  small  part  of  what  Jesus 
did  in  this  world,  or  eternity,  is  recorded  in  the 
Bible?  (Jno.  21:25.)  Evidently  the  time  had 
come  for  these  Antediluvians  to  be  delivered, 
through  the  gospel,  if  they  would  receive  it ;  and 
it  was  an  important  part  of  the  great  missionary 
work  of  the  Christ  to  open  up  the  gospel  in  the 
spirit  world. 

Let  us  note  the  leading  points  of  the  text : 

1.  After  Christ  has  been  "put  to  death  in  the 
flesh,"  but  quickened  by,  or  in,   the  Spirit,  he 
(Christ)  goes  and  preaches  to  the  spirits  in  prison. 

2.  These  spirits  lived  in  the  days  of  Noah 
while  the  ark  was  being  prepared,  hence  were  not 
in  the  body. 

3.  These  spirits  were  intelligent,   conscious 
entities,  who  were  capable  of  hearing  and  receiving 
the  truth. 

First  Peter  4 : 6,  throws  a  flood  of  light  on  the 
text  under  examination. 

For  for  this  cause  was  the  gospel  preached  also  to  them 
that  are  dead,  that  they  might  be  judged  according  to  men 
in  the  flesh,  but  live  according  to  God  in  the  spirit. 

The  ones  who  are  dead  are  not  in  the  flesh. 
To  them  is  the  gospel  preached  in  order  that  they 
may  be  judged  by  the  same  rule,  or  standard,  as 
men  in  the  flesh  to  whom  the  same  gospel  is  de- 
clared. 


148  PROPHECIES  OF  CHRIST. 

We  are  now  prepared  to  show  that  this  work 
was  done  in  fulfillment  of  the  predictions  of  the 
prophets  and  was  an  important  part  of  Christ's 
work. 

I  the  Lord  have  called  thee  in  righteousness,  and  will 
hold  thy  hand,  and  will  keep  thee,  and  give  thee  for  a 
covenant  of  the  people,  for  a  light  of  the  Gentiles:  To 
open  the  blind  eyes,  to  bring  out  the  prisoners  from  the 
prison,  and  them  that  sit  in  darkness  out  of  the  prison- 
house.— Isa.  42:6,  7. 

Thus  saith  the  Lord,  In  an  acceptable  time  have  I 
heard  thee;  and  in  a  day  of  salvation  have  I  helped  thee; 
and  I  will  preserve  thee,  and  give  thee  for  a  covenant  of 
the  people,  to  establish  the  earth,  to  cause  to  inherit  the 
desolate  heritages:  That  thou  mayst  say  to  the  prisoners, 
Go  forth;  to  them  that  are  in  darkness,  Show  yourselves. 
They  shall  feed  in  the  ways,  and  their  pastures  shall  be  in 
all  high  places.  They  shall  not  hunger  nor  thirst,  neither 
shall  the  heat  nor  sun  smite  them:  for  he  that  hath  mercy 
on  them  shall  lead  them,  even  by  the  springs  of  water  shall 
he  guide  them.— Isa.  49:8-10. 

The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  God  is  upon  me;  because  the 
Lord  hath  anointed  me  to  preach  good  tidings  unto  the 
meek;  he  hath  sent  me  to  bind  up  the  broken-hearted,  to 
proclaim  liberty  to  the  captives,  and  the  opening  of  the 
prison  to  them  that  are  bound;  To  proclaim  the  accepta- 
ble year  of  the  Lord,  and  the  day  of  vengeance  of  our  God; 
to  comfort  all  that  mourn.— Isa.  61:1,  2. 

As  for  thee  also,  by  the  blood  of  thy  covenant  I  have 
sent  forth  thy  prisoners  out  of  the  pit  wherein  is  no 
water.  Turn  you  to  the  stronghold,  ye  prisoners  of  hope; 
even  today  do  I  declare  that  I  will  render  double  unto 
thee— Zech.  9:11, 12. 

In  connection  with  this  last  quotation,  read 
verses  9  and  10,  which  show  that  the  pronouns 
"thee"  and  "thy"  of  verse  11  refer  to  Christ.  We 
accept  Peter's  statements  concerning  Christ 
preaching  "to  the  spirits  in  prison,"  and  the 
preaching  of  the  gospel  "to  them  that  are  dr.ad," 
as  the  best  and  safest  exegesis  of  these  prophecies. 
In  Eph.  4 : 8-10,  Paul  tells  us  that  when  Christ 
"ascended  up  on  high,  he  led  captivity  captive, 
and  gave  gifts  unto  men;"  but  he  who  ascended 
first  descended  "into  the  lower  parts  of  the  earth." 


DIFFERENT  TRANSLATIONS.  149 

We  herewith  present  several  different  transla- 
tions as  they  throw  additional  light  upon  the 
language  of  Peter. 

REVISED  VERSION:  Because  Christ  also  suffered  for 
sins  once,  the  righteous  for  the  unrighteous,  that  he 
might  bring  us  to  God;  being  put  to  death  in  the  flesh,  but 
quickened  in  the  spirit;  in  which  also  he  went  and 
preached  unto  the  spirits  in  prison,  which  aforetime  were 
disobedient,  when  the  long-suffering  of  God  waited  in  the 
days  of  Noah,  while  the  ark  was  a  preparing,  wherein  few, 
that  is,  eight  souls,  were  saved  through  water. 

GENEVA:  For  Christ  also  hath  once  suffered  for  sins, 
the  just  for  the  unjust,  that  he  might  bring  us  to  God,  and 
was  put  to  death  concerning  the  flesh,  but  was  quickened 
in  the  Spirit.  By  the  which  he  also  went,  and  preached 
unto  the  spirits  that  arc  in  prison,  which  were  in  time  past 
disobedient,  when  once  the  long-suffering  of  God  abode  in 
the  days  of  Noah,  while  the  ark  was  preparing,  wherein 
few,  that  is,  eight  souls  were  saved  in  the  water. 

SYRIAC:  For  the  Messiah  also  once  died  for  our  sins, 
the  righteous  for  sinners;  that  he  might  bring  you  to  God. 
And  he  died  in  body,  but  lived  in  spirit.  And  he  preached 
to  those  souls  which  were  detained  in  hades,  which  were 
formerly  disobedient,  in  the  days  of  Noah,  when  the  long- 
suffering  of  God  commanded  an  ark  to  be  made,  in  hope  of 
their  repentance;  and  eight  souls  only  entered  into  it,  and 
were  kept  alive  in  the  waters. 

1  Peter  4:6.  GENEVA:  For  to  this  purpose  was  the  gos- 
pel preached  also  unto  the  dead,  that  they  might  be  con- 
demned according  to  men,  in  the  flesh,  but  might  live  ac- 
according  to  God  in  the  spirit. 

SYRIAC:  For  on  this  account  the  announcement  is 
made  also  to  the  dead,  that  they  may  be  judged  as  persons 
in  the  flesh,  and  may  live  according  to  God  in  the  spirit. 

DOUAY:  For  for  this  cause  was  the  gospel  preached 
also  to  the  dead:  that  they  might  be  judged  indeed  accord- 
ing to  men.  in  the  flesh;  but  may  live  according  to  God  in 
the  spirit. 

REVISED:  For  unto  this  end  was  the  gospel  preached 
even  to  the  dead,  that  they  might  be  judged  according  to 
men  in  the  flesh,  but  live  according  to  God  in  the  spirit. 

If  the  usual  interpretation  of  these  scriptures 
is  admissable,  then  that  safety  and  certainty 
which  arc  so  desirable  are  gone ;  and  the  divine 
word  can  be  made  to  teach  almost  anything,  or 


150  COMMENTATORS'  VIEWS. 

nothing,  according  to  the  ingenuity  and  motives 
of  the  one  who  is  trusted  as  the  minister  of  the 
word.  The  common  rules  of  interpretation  which 
compel  us  to  believe  that  Moses  died  and  was  bur- 
ied ;  (Deu.  34:5,  6.)  that  Christ  was  transfigured 
on  the  holy  mount,  also  compel  us  to  believe  that 
he  did,  after  his  death,  preach  to  "the  spirits  in 
prison,"  that  lived  in  the  days  of  Noah.  Alford 
says: 

With  the  great  majority  of  commentators,  ancient  and 
modern,  I  understand  these  words  to  say,  that  our  Lord,  in 
his  disembodied  state,  did  go  to  the  place  of  detention  of  de- 
parted spirits,  and  did  there  announce  his  work  of  redemp- 
tion, preach  salvation  in  fact,  to  the  disembodied  spirits  of 
those  who  refused  to  obey  the  voice  of  God  when  the  judg- 
ment was  hanging  over  them. 

Prof.  Taylor  Lewis : 

We  are  taught  that  there  was  a  work  of  Christ  In  hades' 
He  descended  into  hades;  he  makes  proclamation  "eker- 
uxen"  in  hades  to  those  who  are  there  "in  ward." 

Mr.  Haley,  from  whose  work  we  quote,  adds 
these  words : 

This  interpretation,  which  was  almost  universally  adop- 
ted by  the  early  Christian  Church,  and  which  is  far  more 
tenable  than  any  other,  involves,  of  course,  the  conscious- 
ness of  departed  souls.— DISCREPANCIES  OP  THE  BIBLE,  p- 
192. 

We  close  on  this  text  with  the  exegesis  of  F. 
W.  Farrar,  D.  D.,  F.  R.  S.,  who  is  regarded  as  one 
of  the  ablest  and  fairest  writers  of  the  age. 

St.  Peter  has  one  doctrine  which  is  almost  peculiar  to 
himself,  and  which  is  inestimably  precious.  In  this  he  not 
only  ratifies  some  of  the  widest  hopes  which  it  had  been 
given  to  his  brother  apostle,  if  not  to  reveal,  at  least  to  in- 
timate, but  he  also  supplements  these  hopes  by  the  new 
aspect  of  a  much  disregarded,  and,  indeed,  till  recent 
times  half-forgotten,  article  of  the  Christian  creed:—! 
mean  the  object  of  Christ's  descent  into  hades.  In  this 
truth  is  involved  nothing  less  than  the  extension  of 
Christ's  redeeming  work  to  the  dead  who  died  before  his 
coming,  Had  the  epistle  contained  nothing  else  but  this, 
It  would  at  once  have  been  raised  above  the  irreverent 
charge  of  being  "secondhand  and  commonplace,"  I  allude 


CHRIST  AND  SPIRITS  IN  PRISON.  151 

of  course  to  the  famous  passage  in  which  St.  Peter  tells  us  (3: 
19,  20)  that  "Christ  died  for  sins  once  for  all  that  he  may  lead 
us  to  God,  slain  indeed  in  the  flesh  but  quickened  in  the 
Spirit,  in  which  he  also  went  and  preached  to  the  spirits  in 
prison,  once  disobedient,  when  the  long-suffering  of  God 
was  waiting'  in  the  days  of  Noah,  during  the  preparing  of 
the  ark,  by  entering  into  which  few,  that  is,  eight  souls 
were  brought  safe  through  water"  So  far  is  this  from  being 
a  casual  allusion,  that  St.  Peter  returns  to  it,  as  though 
with  the  object  of  making  its  meaning  indisputably  plain. 
When  he  speaks  of  the  perishing  heathen,  who  shall,  after 
lives  of  sin  and  self-indulgence,  give  account  to  the  Judge 
of  quick  and  dead,  he  says— "For,  for  this  cause  also,  even 
to  the  dead  was  the  gospel  preached;"  adding,  as  though  to 
preclude  any  escape  from  his  plain  meaning,  "that  they 
may  be  judged  according  to  men  in  the  flesh,  but  may  live 
according  to  God  in  the  spirit."  Few  words  of  scripture 
have  been  so  tortured  and  emptied  of  their  significance 
as  these.  In  other  passages  whole  theological  systems, 
whole  ecclesiastical  despotisms,  have  been  built  on  the 
abuse  of  a  metaphor,  on  the  translation  of  rhetoric  into 
logic,  on  the  ignorance  and  incapacity  which  will  not  inter- 
pret words  according  to  the  universal  rules  of  literary 
criticism;  and  yet  every  elf ort  has  been  made  to  explain 
away  the  plain  meaning  of  this  passage.  It  is  one  of  the 
most  precious  passages  of  scripture,  and  it  involves  no  am- 
biguity, except  such  as  is  created  by  the  scholasticism  of  a 
prejudiced  theology.  It  stands  almost  alone  in  scripture, 
not  indeed  in  the  gleam  of  light  which  it  throws  across  the 
awful  darkness  of  the  destiny  of  sin,  but  in  the  manner  in 
which  it  reveals  to  us  the  source  from  which  that  gleam  of 
light  has  been  derived.  For  if  language  have  any  meaning 
this  language  means  that  Christ,  when  his  spirit  descended 
into  the  lower  world,  proclaimed  the  message  of  salvation 
to  the  once  impenitent  dead.  In  the  first  indeed  of  the  two 
allusions  to  this  truth  the  preaching  is  formally  limited  to 
those  who  died  in  the  Deluge.  This  is  due  to  two  causes. 
St.  Peter's  mind  is  full  of  the  Deluge  as  a  type  of  the 
world's  lustration,  first  by  death  and  then  by  deliverance, 
just  as  baptism  is  a  type  of  death  unto  sin  and  the  new 
life  unto  righteousness.  Also  he  is  thinking  of  Christ's 
comparison  of  the  days  of  Noah  to  the  days  of  the  Son  of 
Man.  But  it  is  impossible  to  suppose  that  the  Antedilu- 
vian sinners,  conspicuous  as  they  were  for  their  wicked- 
ness, were  the  only  ones  of  all  the  dead  who  were  singled 
out  to  receive  the  message  of  deliverance.  That  restricted 
application  is  excluded  by  the  second  passage.  There  the 


152  BREADTH  OF  CHRIST'S  WORK. 

apostle  shows  that  he  had  only  referred  to  those  who  per- 
ished in  the  deluge  as  striking  representatives  of  a  world 
of  sinners,  judged  as  regards  men  in  the  flesh,  but  living  as 
regards  God  in  the  Spirit.  For,  in  referring  to  the  judg- 
ment which  awaits  the  heathen,  he  attempers  the  awful 
thought  of  their  iniquities  and  of  the  future  retribution 
which  awaited  them  by  saying,  that  with  a  view  to  this 
very  state  of  things  the  gospel  was  preached  to  the  dead: — 
in  order  that,  however  terrible  might  be  the  judgments 
which  would  befall  their  human  nature,  the  hope  of  some 
spiritual  share  in  the  divine  life  might  not  be  forever  ex- 
cluded at  the  moment  of  death.  Of  the  effects  of  the 
preaching  nothing  is  said^  There  is  no  dogma  of  univer- 
salism  or  of  conditional  immortality.  All  details,  as  in  the 
entire  eschatology  of  scripture,  are  left  dim  and  indefinite; 
but  no  honest  man  who  goes  to  Holy  Scripture  to  seek  for 
truth,  instead  of  going  to  try  and  find  whatever  errors  he 
may  bring  to  it  as  a  part  of  his  theological  belief,  can  pos- 
sibly deny  that  there  is  ground  here  to  mitigate  that  ele- 
ment of  the  popular  teaching  of  Christendom  against 
which  many  of  the  greatest  saints  and  theologians  have 
raised  their  voices.  That  teaching  rests  with  the  deadliest 
weight  on  all  who  have  sufficient  imagination  to  realize 
the  meaning  of  the  phrases  in  which  they  indulge,  and  suffi- 
cient heart  to  feel  their  awf ulness.  If  Christ  preached  to 
dead  men  who  were  once  disobedient,  then  scripture  shows 
us  that  the  moment  of  death  does  not  necessarily 
involve  a  final  and  hopeless  torment  for  every  sinful  soul. 
Of  all  the  blunt  weapons  of  ignorant  controversy  employed 
against  those  to  whom  has  been  revealed  the  possibility  of 
a  larger  hope  than  is  left  mankind  by  Augustine  or  by  Cal- 
vin, the  bluntest  is  the  charge  that  such  a  hope  renders 
null  the  necessity  for  the  work  of  Christ?  As  if  it  were 
not  this  very  hope  which  gives  to  the  love  of  Christ  its 
mightiest  effectiveness!  We  thus  rescue  the  work  of  re- 
demption from  the  appearance  of  having  failed  to  achieve 
its  end  for  the  vast  majority  of  those  for  whom  Christ  died. 
By  accepting  the  light  thus  thrown  upon  the  descent  into 
hell,  we  extend  to  those  of  the  dead  who  have  not  finally 
hardened  themselves  against  it,  the  blessedness  of  Christ's 
atoning  work.  We  thus  complete  the  divine,  all-compre- 
hending circuit  of  God's  universal  grace!  In  these  passa- 
ges, as  has  been  truly  said,  "we  may  see  an  expansive  par- 
aphrase and  exuberant  variation  of  the  original  Paulino 
theme  of  universalisin  of  the  evangelic  embassage  of  Christ 
and  of  his  sovereignty  over  the  world;  and  especially  of  the 
passage  in  the  Philippians,  where  all  they  that  are  in  heav- 


MELANCHOLY  THEOLOGY.  153 

en  and  on  earth,  and  under  the  earth,  are  enumerated  as 
classes  of  the  subjects  of  the  exalted  Redeemer."  But  alasl 
Human  perversity  has  darkened  the  very  heavens  looking 
at  them  through  the  medium  of  its  own  preconceptions  and 
the  clear  light  of  revelation  has  streamed  in  vain  upon  the 
awf  ulness  of  the  future.  The  attempts  to  make  the  descent 
of  Jesus  into  hades  a  visit  merely  to  liberate  the  holy  pat- 
riarchs, or  to  strike  terror  into  the  evil  spirits,  are  the  un- 
worthy inventions  of  dogmatic  embarrassment.  The  inter- 
pretation of  Christ's  "preaching"  as  only  a  preaching  of 
damnation  is  one  of  the  most  melancholy  specimens  of  the- 
ological hardness  trying  to  blot  out  the  hope  of  God's 
mercy  from  the  world  beyond  the  grave.  "It  was,"  as 
Keuss  says,  "far  better  than  all  that;  it  was  for  the  living 
a  new  manifestation  of  the  inexhaustible  grace  of  God;  for 
the  dead  a  supreme  opportunity  of  casting  themselves  into 
the  arms  of  his  mercy ;  and  finally,  for  Christian  theologians, 
so  skillful  in  torturing  the  letter,  and  so  blind  at  seizing 
the  spirit,  it  might  have  been  the  germ  of  a  blind  and 
fruitful  conception,  if  instead  of  compressing  more  and 
more  the  circle  of  life  and  light  by  their  formula  and  their 
anathemas,  they  would  have  learnt  from  the  teaching  of 
the  apostle  that  this  circle  is  illimitable,  and  that  the  life- 
giving  rays  which  stream  from  its  center  can  penetrate 
even  the  most  distant  sphere  of  the  world  of  spirits."— 
"EARLY  DAYS  OF  CHRISTIANITY,"  pp.  91,  92,  93,  94. 

The  general  meaning  of  this  passage— Christ's  descent 
Into  Hades  to  proclaim  the  gospel  to  the  once  disobedient 
dead— is  to  every  unobscured  and  unsophisticated  mind  as 
clear  as  words  can  make  it.  Theologians  have  attempted 
to  get  rid  of  this  obvious  reference  by  explaining  it  of 
Christ  preaching  in  the  person  of  Noah;  or  by  making  "He 
preached"  mean  "He  announced  condemnation."  .... 
These  attempts  arise  from  that  spirit  or  system  which 
would  fain  be  more  orthodox  than  Scripture  itself,  and 
would  exclude  every  ground  of  future  hope  from  the  reve- 
lation of  a  love  too  loving  for  hearts  trained  in  bitter  the- 
ologies. What  was  the  effect  of  Christ's  preaching  we  are 
not  told.  Some,  perhaps,  may  like  to  assume  that  the 
preaching  of  Christ  in  the  unseen  world  was  unanimously 
rejected  by  the  once  disobedient  dead,  though  the  men- 
tion of  their  former  disobedience  seems  to  imply  the  infer- 
ence that  they  did  hearken  now.  Others  can,  if  they 
choose,  assert  that  this  proclamation  of  the  gospel  to  dis- 
embodied spirits  was  confined  to  Antediluvian  sinners. 
With  such  inferences  we  are  unconcerned.  *'It  is  ours," 
says  Alf  ord,  i4to  deal  with  the  plain  words  of  Scripture,  and 


154  RUTHLESS  COMMENTATORS. 

to  accept  its  revelations  as  far  as  vouchsafed  unto 
us.  And  they  are  vouchsafed  to  us  to  the  utmost 
limit  of  legitimate  inference  from  revealed  facts. 
The  inference  every  intelligent  reader  will  draw  from 
the  fact  here  announced:  it  is  not  purgatory;  it  is 
not  universal  restitution;  but  it  is  one  which  throws  bless- 
ed light  on  one  of  the  darkest  enigmas  of  divine  justice: 
the  cases  where  the  final  doom  seems  infinitely  out  of  pro- 
portion to  the  lapse  which  has  incurred  it."— Ibid.,  p.  110. 

After  quoting  2  Peter  4  : 6,  Mr.  Farrar  again 
refers  to  the  work  of  commentators. 

In  the  last  verse  we  again  encounter  the  ruthlessness 
of  commentators.  "The  dead"  to  whom  the  gospel  was 
preached  are  taken  to  mean  something  quite  different 
from  "the  dead"  who  are  to  give  an  account.  The  dead  to 
whom  the  gospel  is  preached  are  explained  away  into  "sin- 
ners" or  "the  Gentiles,"  or  "some  who  are  now  dead." 
Augustine,  as  might  have  been  expected,  leads  the  way  in 
one  wrong  direction,  and  Calvin  in  another.  Another  view 
—which  makes  this  verse  mean  that  "Christ  will  judge  even 
the  dead  as  well  as  the  living,  because  the  dead  too  will 
not  have  been  without  an  opportunity  to  receive  his  gos- 
pel"—is  indeed  tenable.  Tome,  however,  judging  of  the 
feelings  of  the  apostle,  from  his  boundless  gratitude  for 
the  opportunities  of  obtaining  forgiveness,  and  from  the 
love  which  he  inculcates  towards  all  mankind,  the  connec- 
tion seems  to  be,  "the  heathen,  in  all  their  countless  myri- 
ads, who  seem  to  be  hopelessly  perishing  around  you,  will 
be  judged;  — but  the  very  reason  why  the  gospel  was 
preached  by  Christ  to  the  dead  was  in  order  that  this  judg- 
ment may  be  founded  on  principles  of  justice,  that  they 
may  be  judged  in  their  human  capacity  as  sinners,  and 
yet  may  live  to  God  as  regards  the  diviner  part  of  their 
natures;"— if,  that  is,  they  accept  this  offer  of  the  gospel  to 
them  even  beyond  the  grave.— Ibid,  p.  3. 

The  foregoing  testimony  fully  supports  the 
claim  that  both  the  righteous  and  the  wicked  are 
conscious  between  death  and  the  resurrection. 
But  how  do  Adventists  and  Christadelphians 
meet  the  evidence  ?  We  have  already  examined 
and  exposed  their  interpretation  of  leading  pass- 
ages used  in  support  of  the  view  we  defend ;  but 
will  now,  for  the  benefit  of  all  concerned,  examine 
their  objections  to  the  intermediate  state  more 
comprehensively. 


SHEOL  AND  HADES.  166 

The  Hebrew  sheol,  with  its  Greek  equivalent 
hades,  is  rendered  "grave,"  "pit"  and  "hell."  Ad- 
ventist  authors  claim  that  these  words  are  re- 
stricted in  their  meaning  and  application  to  the 
place  of  burial  where  the  unconscious  dead  are 
laid,  that  is,  they  mean  the  grave. 

Sheol  and  hades  are  the  grave,  the  receptacle  of  the 
dead,  the  land  of  silence  and  darkness,  the  land  of  forget- 
f illness,  of  insensibility;  where  the  dead  all  slumber  till 
the  resurrection.  The  sense  alone  where  they  are  used 
determines  this,  and  absolutely  requires  that  they  be  so 
understood.— "SHEOL  AND  HADES,  by  Elder  L.  O.  Collins, 
p.  7. 

Elder  Collins  quotes  a  number  of  authors  who 
are  supposed  to  be  in  harmony  with  his  view ;  but, 
upon  careful  examination,  it  will  be  seen  that  the 
leading  point  made  by  these  authors  is  that  Sheol 
and  Hades  do  not  indicate  a  place  of  future  pun- 
ishment, from  which  view  we  do  not  dissent. 
However,  some  of  his  authors  do  more  fully  endorse 
his  position,  viz.,  that  sheol  and  hades  refer  only 
to  the  grave ;  while  others  claim  what  is  evident- 
ly correct,  that  they  refer  to  the  state  of  the  dead 
in  general,  "without  any  regard  to  their  character, 
their  happiness  or  misery."  It  is  evident  that 
these  original  words,  like  the  originals  for  soul 
and  spirit,  have  a  variety  of  meanings  which  are 
to  be  determined  mainly  from  their  connection 
and  use  as  we  find  them  in  the  Bible.  Hebrew 
and  Greek  scholars  differ  widely  as  to  the  true  im- 
port and  use  of  these  words;  so,  while  we  are 
permitted  to  use  their  views  as  collatteral  evi- 
dence, we  can  by  no  means  settle  the  question  by 
an  appeal  to  them  alone.  We  have  already  seen 
that  paradtse  and  heaven  are  sometimes  used  to  rep- 
resent the  abode  of  the  conscious  dead ;  that  hell, 
(hades) prison,  pit,  and'  'nether  parts  of  the  earth,"  also 
represent  the  abode  of  spirits.  The  evidence  ad- 
duced is  of  such  a  character,  too,  that  the  ex- 


156  PROPER  APPLICATIONS. 

pressed  opinion  of  any  number  of  men  concerning 
the  import  of  She^l  and  Hades  can  not  overthrow 
it.  We  have  also  presented  testimony  from  such 
men  as  Alford  ;  Prof.  Taylor  Lewis ;  Lyman  Abb- 
ott; John  W.  Haley,  and  F.  W.  Farrar,  whose 
words,  we  believe,  support  the  Bible  view  of  this 
question. 

But  we  have  already  seen  that  Adventist  au- 
thors, when  it  seems  to  suit  their  purpose,  at- 
tempt to  confine  us  to  the  primary  or  literal  defi- 
nitions of  original  words.  If,  therefore,  the  liter- 
al meaning  of  sheol  and  hades  does  not  imply  the 
grave  any  more  than  it  does  the  world  of  spirits, 
what  right  have  our  opponents  to  always  apply  it 
to  the  grave?  Dr.  Young,  in  his  "BIBLE  CON- 
CORDANCE," says  that  sheol  means  "the  unseen 
state;"  hades,  "the  unseen  world."  We  may  be 
asked,  "What  right  have  immortal-soulists  to  con- 
fine the  meaning  of  the  words  to  the  'world  of 
spirits  ? '  "  We  reply,  none.  In  our  opinion  both 
are  extreme  views.  Sheol  and  hades,  "the  unseen 
state,"  "the  unseen  world,"  may  represent  the 
world  of  spirits,  or  they  may  represent  the  grave. 
Whether  these  words  apply  to  the  grave,  where 
the  body  is  hidden  away,  or  whether  they  apply  to 
the  respective  abodes  of  righteous  and  wicked 
spirits,  in  the  intermediate  state,  must  be  deter- 
mined by  the  connection  in  which  they  are  used. 

In  "REVISERS'  PREFACE"  to  the  Revised  Ver- 
sion of  the  Bible,  we  have  the  following  observa- 
tions on  sheol  and  hndes : 

Similarly,  the  Hebrew  sheol,  which  signifies  the  abode 
of  departed  spirits,  and  corresponds  to  the  Greek  hades, 
or  the  under  world,  is  variously  rendered  in  the  Author- 
ized Version  by  "grave,"  "pit,"  and  "hell."  Of  these  ren- 
derings, "hell,"  if  it  could  be  taken  in  its  original  sense  as 
used  in  the  Creeds,  would  be  a  fairly  adequate  equivalent 
for  the  Hebrew  word;  but  it  is  so  commonly  understood  of 
the  place  of  torment  that  to  employ  it  frequently  would 


THE  BIBLICAL  HADES.  157 

lead  to  inevitable  misunderstanding.  The  Revisers  there- 
fore in  the  historical  narratives  have  left  the  rendering 
"the  grave"  or  "the  pit"  in  the  text,  with  a  marginal  note, 
"Hebrew  sheol"  to  indicate  that  it  does  not  signify  "the 
place  of  burial;"  while  in  the  poetical  writings  they  have 
put  most  commonly  sheol  in  the  text  and  "the  grave"  in 
the  margin. 

In  the  winter  of  1888  an  article  appeared  in 
the  Independent,  (N.  Y.)  by  Samuel  T.  Spear,  D.  D., 
entiled  "THE  BIBLICAL  HADES."  The  opening 
paragraphs  read  as  follows : 

The  term  hades  placed  at  the  head  of  this  article  is  an 
anglicised  Greek  word  that  occurs  eleven  times  in  the 
Greek  New  Testament,  and,  with  a  single  exception,  is.  in 
the  common  English  Version  of  the  Testament,  translated 
by  the  word  Hell.  This  is  an  unfortunate,  and,  indeed, 
erroneous  translation,  since  the  latter  term  is,  by  common 
usage,  applied  only  to  the  place  of  punishment  to  which 
the  wicked  go  after  death.  The  Revised  Version  of  the 
New  Testament  avoids  this  error  by  simply  anglicizing  the 
Greek  word  hades  and  using  hell  to  translate  the  Greek 
term  gehenna,  which,  in  the  time  of  Christ  and  his  apostles 
was  employed  by  the  Jews  to  designate  the  place  for  the 
future  punishment  of  the  wicked.  Our  Savior  in  speaking 
to  the  Jews  adopted  this  term,  and  used  it  in  the  sense 
which  is  now  commonly  attached  to  the  word  hell. 

Etymologically  considered,  the  term  hades  is  derived 
from  the  Greek  letter  Alpha,  used  as  a  privative,  and  a 
Greek  verb  which  signifies  to  see,  and  hence  means  that 
which  is  not  seen.  This  term  was  by  the  Jews  applied,  in  a 
general  sense,  to  the  invisible  world  or  abode,  in  which 
human  spirits,  subsequent  to  death  and  prior  to  the  resur- 
rection and  final  judgment,  were  supposed  to  exist  separ- 
ately from  their  bodies,  without  reference  to  the  question 
whether  they  were  good  or  bad,  happy  or  miserable,  re- 
warded or  punished.  The  corresponding  word  in  the  He- 
brew language  is  sheol,  and  in  the  Septuagint  Version  of 
the  Old  Testament,  hades  is  used  to  translate  sheol.  There 
is  no  word  in  the  English  language  that  is  the  exact  equiv- 
alent of  these  terms.  Hell,  in  the  generally  received  sense, 
is  not  such  an  equivalent. 

The  Greeks  employed  the  term  hades  in  the  same  gen- 
eral sense  in  which  hades  and  sheol  were  used  among  the 
Jews,  and  had  their  Elysium  as  the  particular  abode  of  the 
good,  and  also  their  Tartarus  as  the  abode  of  the  wicked, 
both  of  which,  though  different  abodes,  were  regions  in 


J58  ELYSIUM  AND  TARTARUS. 

hades  separated  from  each  other.  Tartarus  corresponds 
with  the  English  word  hell,  in  the  usually  accepted  sense 
of  the  latter;  and  Elysium  also  corresponds  with  the  word 
paradise  in  the  sense  in  which  Christ  used  this  term  when 
he  said  to  the  penitent  thief:  "Today  shalt  thou  be  with 
me  in  Paradise.  (Luke  23:43.)  The  Greek  term  Tartarus 
occurs  nowhere  in  the  New  Testament;  yet  Peter,  in  his 
second  epistle,  uses  the  verb  derived  from  the  noun  to  rep- 
resent the  abode  and  condition  of  the  angels  that  sinned, 
and  whom,  as  he  declares,  God  cast  down  to  hell  [Tarta- 
rus], and  delivered  them  into  chains  of  darkness  to  be  re- 
served unto  judgment.  (2  Peter  2:4.)  These  fallen  angels 
were,  according  to  this  description,  in  that  region  of  hades 
which  the  Greeks  called  Tartarus,  and  for  which  Gehenna 
was  the  title  among  the  Jews,  and  were  there  waiting  the 
final  judgment. 

Following  this  are  quotations  from  Dr.  Robin- 
son, Dr.  Meyer,  and  Dr.  Gloag  in  support  of  the 
view  advocated.  Thus  we  see  that  learned  men 
dijler  as  to  the  true  import  and  proper  use  of  these 
words  ;  though  the  preponderance  of  evidence  is 
in  favor  of  sheol  and  hades  being  the  abodes  of  con- 
scious beings  in  the  spirit  state.  One  thing  is 
clear,  there  is  nothing  in  the  meaning  of  the 
words  which  forbid  their  application  to  the  world 
of  departed  spirits.  And  the  appeal  of  our  oppo- 
nents to  the  definitions  of  these  terms  is  as  futile 
as  their  appeal  to  the  definitions  of  ru-wh  and  pneu- 
ma,  nephesh  and  psuche,  the  originals  for  spirit  and 
soul. 

But  because  men  are  to  be  judged  and  punish- 
ed or  rewarded,  as  the  case  may  be,  after  the  res- 
urrection, which  facts  are  plainly  stated  in  the 
word,  we  are  told  that  the  view  which  necessi- 
tates rewards  and  punishments,  in  the  intermedi- 
ate state,  is  opposed  to  the  teachings  of  the  Bible. 
Not  so.  God  is  the  judge.  Will  he  know  any 
more  about  our  true  condition  in  the  day  of  judg- 
ment than  he  does  now  ?  Certainly  not.  Then 
why  can  he  not  give  to  us  that  which  we  are  pre- 
pa»ed  to  enjoy,  in  this  life  and  in  the  intermedi- 


PRESENT  AND  FUTURE  REWARDS.  159 

ate  state?  He  can,  does,  and  will,  so  give.  Is  not 
God  discriminating  between  the  righteous  and  the 
wicked  every  day  ?  He  is  blessing  and  rewarding 
those  who  do  his  will,  while  he  is  afflicting  and 
punishing  those  who  do  not.  It  is  true  that 
the  disciples  were  to  have  tribulation  in  the  world, 
but  in  Christ  they  were  to  have  peace.  We  have 
already  shown  that  all  who  properly  obey  the  gos- 
pel receive  the  earnest  of  their  inheritance,  and 
if  faithful,  it  continues  with  them  "until  the  re- 
demption of  the  purchased  possession."  (Eph. 
1:13,  14.)  Now  this  "earnest"  increases  in  exact 
proportion  to  our  faithfulness  in  the  service  of 
God ;  and  as  our  spiritual  capacity  increases  be- 
cause of  an  increase  of  faith  and  diligence,  we  re- 
ceive a  greater  supply  from  God. 

God  is  judging  all  the  time  and  administering 
partial  rewards  and  punishments ;  but  this  does 
not  obviate  the  necessity  of  judgment  to  come. 
The  resurrection  introduces  anew  order  of  things, 
and  it  is  necessary  that  the  judgment  should  fol- 
low. As  man  is  not  complete  without  the  body, 
so  he  can  not  enjoy  a  fulness  of  reward  in  the 
spirit  state.  But  it  is  also  necessary  that  when 
the  spirit  returns  "to  God  who  gave  it,"  at  death, 
th  it  it  should  be  placed  under  proper  conditions 
and  where  it  properly  belongs,  till  the  resurrec- 
tion and  judgment.  Hence  the  rich  man  and  Laz- 
arus both  went  to  hades,  but  occupy  different  con- 
ditions. One  is  "comforted,"  the  other  is  "tor- 
mented." These  opposite  conditions  were  the  in- 
evitable results  of  the  different  ways  in  which  they 
lived  in  this  world.  Who  can  not  see  that  loyalty 
to  God  and  obedience  to  his  truth  bring  present 
reward;  and  that  when  we  are  done  with  the 
cares  and  toils  of  mortality,  we  are  prepared  for 
the  enjoyment  of  a  greater  degree  of  bliss.  And 
who  can  not  see  that  rebellion  against  God  and 


160  NECESSITY  OF  FUTURE  JUDGMENT. 

disobedience  to  his  revealed  will  bring  present 
distress,  and  that  when  this  probation  is  ended 
and  the  cup  of  iniquity  filled  to  the  brim,  it  is 
meet,  nay  absolutely  essential,  that  we  should  re- 
ceive the  greater  punishment.  Fallen  angels  are 
''reserved  unto  judgment ; "  but  are  they  not  und- 
er punishment  while  in  "pits  of  darkness"  in 
"hellf"  (tartarus.)  "The  unrighteous,"  in  like 
manner,  will  the  Lord  keep  "under  punishment 
unto  the  day  of  judgment."  (2  Peter  2:4,  9,  Ee- 
vised  Version.) 

Our  position  that  the  reward  of  the  righteous 
begins  with  their  obedience,  may  be  objected  to 
on  the  grounds  that  the  righteous  often  suffer 
here,  while  the  wicked  go  free.  The  rich  man 
had  his  "good  things,"  in  this  life,  "and  Laza- 
rus in  like  manner  evil  things."  Yes,  but  this 
does  not  change  the  application  of  the  general 
principle  that  the  good  and  obedient  are  rewarded, 
in  a  degree,  and  the  wicked  and  rebellious  punish- 
ed, in  this  life.  The  rich  man  enjoyed  that  which 
he  esteemed  as  good ;  but  who  shall  say  that  he 
would  not  have  enjoyed  that  which  is  incompar- 
ably higher  and  better,  had  his  life  been  one  of 
complete  obedience  to  God.  While  it  is  true  that 
all  who  are  faithful  to  God,  and  stand  firm  for  the 
right  under  all  circumstances,  will  have  trials  to 
bear  and  difficulties  to  encounter,  of  which  the 
less  conscientious  and  obedient  know  little  or 
nothing ;  it  is  also  true  that  the  bright  hope  of 
future  life  and  bliss ;  the  knowledge  of  God  and 
his  Son  Jesus  Christ ;  with  the  blessing  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  more  than  compensate  for  all  the  sac- 
rifices made  and  the  trials  endured. 

It  is  an  oft  repeated  statement  of  our  oppo- 
nents that  if  men  are  rewarded  or  punished,  in 
the  intermediate  state,  then  there  is  no  need  of  a 
coming  judgment ;  but  if  this  reasoning  is  cor- 


PRESENT  AND  FUTURE  REWARDS.  161 

rect,  then  the  fact  that  rewards  and  punishments 
are  administered  in  this  life,  would  destroy  the 
necessity  for  the  judgment.  We  receive  partial 
reward  here ;  a  still  greater  degree  in  the  inter- 
mediate state,  and  a  fulness  at  the  day  of  judg- 
ment. Jesus  promised, . 

Where  I  am,  there  shall  also  my  servant  be. —John  12: 26. 

Father,  I  will  that  they  also  whom  thou  hast  given  me 
be  with  me  where  I  am;  that  they  may  behold  my  glory 
which  thou  hast  given  me.— John  17:24. 

How  plain !  As  we  have  seen,  the  promise 
and  provision  that  the  disciples  should  be  with 
Jesus,  covers  the  intermediate  and  resurrection 
states.  They  will  be  with  him  and  behold  his 
glory  in  the  intermediate  state,  but  will  not  be 
clothed  upon  with  the  same  glory  till  the  resur- 
rection and  judgment. 

Blessed  are  the  dead  which  die  in  the  Lord  from  henco- 
forth:  yea,  saith  the  spirit,  that  they  may  rest  from  their 
labors;  and  their  works  do  follow  them.  (Revised  Version, 
For  their  works  follow  with  them.— Rev.  14:13. 

Paul  wrote,  Whilst  we  are  at  home  in  the  body,  we  are 
absent  from  the  Lord.— 2  Cor.  5:6.  Also,  For  to  me  to  live 
is  Christ,  and  to  die  is  gain.  For  I  am  in  a  strait  betwixt 
two,  having  a  desire  to  depart,  and  to  be  with  Christ; 
which  is  far  better.— Phil.  1:21,  23. 

The  following  scriptures,  from  many,  show 
that  God  does  judge,  reward  and  punish  in  this 
life ;  and  if  in  this  life,  why  not  in  the  intermed- 
iate state,  when  the  spirits  of  all  men  have  passed 
into  hades  ? 

Some  men's  sins  are  open  beforehand,  going  before  to 
judgment:  and  some  men  they  follow  after.  Likewise 
also,  the  good  works  of  some  are  manifest  beforehand;  and 
they  that  are  otherwise  can  not  be  hid.— 1  Tim.  5:24,  25. 

Therefore  we  ought  to  give  the  more  earnest  heed  to 
the  things  which  we  have  heard,  lest  at  any  time  we 
should  let  them  slip.  For  if  the  word  spoken  by  angels  was 
steadfast,  and  every  transgression  and  disobedience  re- 
ceived a  just  recompense  of  reward.  How  shall  we  escape, 
if  we  neglect  so  great  salvation;  which  at  the  first  began  to 
be  spoken  by  the  Lord,  and  was  confirmed  unto  us  by  them 
that  heard  him.— Heb.  2:1-3 


162        GOD  JUDGES  IN  THE  EARTH.  " 

And  he  said  unto  Abram,  Know  of  a  surety  that  thy 
seed  shall  be  a  stranger  in  a  land  that  is  not  theirs,  and 
shall  serve  them;  and  they  shall  afflict  them  four  hundred 
years;  And  also  that  nation  whom  they  shall  serve,  will  1 
judge:  and  afterward  shall  they  come  out  with  great  sub- 
stance.—Gen.  15:13, 14. 

He  is  the  Lord  our  God;  his  judgments  are  In  all  the 
earth.— Psalms  105:7. 

But  let  him  that  glorieth,  glory  in  this,  that  he  under- 
standeth  and  knoweth  me,  that  I  am  the  Lord  which  exer- 
cise loving-kindness,  judgment,  and  righteousness,  in  the 
earth:  for  in  these  things  I  delight,  saith  the  Lord.— Jer. 
9:24. 

And  I  scattered  them  among  the  heathen,  and  they 
were  dispersed  through  the  countries;  according  to  their 
way  and  according  to  their  doings  I  judged  them.— Ezek.  36: 
19. 

All  in  whose  nostrils  was  the  breath  of  life,  of  all  that 
was  in  the  dry  land,  died.  And  every  living  substance  was 
destroyed  which  was  upon  the  face  of  the  ground,  both 
man,  and  cattle,  and  the  creeping  things,  and  the  fowl  of 
the  heaven;  and  they  were  destroyed  from  the  earth;  and 
Noah  only  remained  alive,  and  they  that  were  with  him  in 
the  ark.  And  the  waters  prevailed  upon  the  earth  a  hun- 
dred and  fifty  days.— Gen.  7:22-24. 

For  if  God  spared  not  the  angels  that  sinned,  but  cast 
them  down  to  hell,  and  delivered  them  into  chains  of  dark- 
ness, to  be  reserved  unto  judgment;  And  spared  not  the 
old  world,  but 'saved  Noah  the  eighth  person,  a  preacher  of 
righteousness,  bringing  in  the  flood  upon  the  world  of  the 
ungodly;  And  turning  the  cities  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah 
into  ashes,  condemned  them  with  an  overthrow,  making 
them  an  ensample  unto  those  that  after  should  live  ungod- 
ly; And  delivered  just  Lot,  vexed  with  the  filthy  conver- 
sation of  the  wicked.— 2  Peter  2:4-7. 

The  leading  objection  urged  against  our  posi- 
tion, is  the  supposed  fact  that  all  are  unconscious 
in  she-ol  and  hades.  The  claim  is  that  the  scrip- 
tures plainly  declare  that  all  men  become  uncon- 
scious at  death,  and  remain  so  till  the  resurrec- 
tion. We  have  already  shown  this  claim  to  be 
indefensible  and  untrue,  but  propose  to  give  our 
opponents  a  fair  and  full  show,  hence  permit  them 
to  defend  the  dogma  of  unconsciousness  after  death 
in  their  own  peculiar  way.  We  will  examine  a 


LEADING  TEXTS  EXAMINED.  163 

number  of   their  leading  proof  texts  and  then 
their  position  as  a  whole. 

I  said  in  my  heart  concerning  the  estate  of  the  sons  of 
men,  that  God  might  manifest  them,  and  that  they  might 
see  that  they  themselves  are  beasts.  For  that  which  be- 
falleth  the  sons  of  men  befalleth  beasts;  even  one  thing 
befalleth  them:  as  the  one  dieth.  so  dieth  the  other;  yea, 
they  have  all  one  breath;  so  that  a  man  hath  no  preemi- 
nence above  a  beast:  for  all  is  vanity.  All  go  unto  one 
place;  all  are  of  the  dust,  and  all  turn  to  dust  again.  Who 
knoweth  the  spirit  of  man  that  goeth  upward,  and  the 
spirit  of  the  beast  that  goeth  downward  to  the  earth?— 
Eccles.  3:18-21. 

It  will  hardly  be  claimed  that  there  is  no  dif- 
ference between  the  death  of  a  mule  or  a  cow  and 
that  of  a  true  and  faithful  child  of  God,  who  is 
full  of  an  intelligent  hope  of  everlasting  life !  But 
what  Solomon  affirms  is,  that  man  and  beast  are 
alike  subject  to  death  ;  and  in  this  respect  man 
has  no  "preeminence  above  a  beast."  If  we  take 
it  in  an  unmodified  sense,  then  the  beast  is  fully 
equal  to  man,  both  before  anc1  after  death  !  How 
absurd  !  Can  a  beast  serve  God  according  to  the 
gospel  ?  Can  it  preach  the  gospel  to  the  people  ? 

The  twentieth  verse  shows  that  reference  is 
had  to  the  destiny  of  the  body.  "All  are  of  the 
dust,  and  all  return  to  dust  again."  And  in  the 
last  chapter  and  seventh  verse  of  the  same  book 
the  same  writer  gives  his  settled  conclusion  on  the 
destiny  of  man.  "Then  shall  the  dust  return  to 
the  earth  as  it  was ;  and  the  spirit  shall  return 
unto  God  who  gave  it."  If  it  be  claimed  that  Sol- 
omon was  certainly  very  skeptical  concerning  con- 
scious existence  after  death,  we  reply,  he  was  just 
as  skeptical  concerning  conscious  existence  in  the 
resurrection.  (See  Eccles.  3:22.)  "Wherefore  I 
perceive  that  there  is  nothing  better  than  that  a 
man  should  rejoice  in  his  own  works ;  for  that  is 
his  portion  :  for  who  shall  bring  him  to  see  what 
shall  be  after  him  ?" 


164  RULES  OF  INTERPRETATION. 

Mr.  Haley,  after  presenting  another  text  from 
the  same  author,  offers  that  which  is  worthy  of 
careful  consideration. 

Just  here  the  reader  will  observe  that  nearly  all  of  the 
texts  adduced  by  mortal-sou  lists  to  prove  the  unconscious- 
ness of  the  dead,  are  taken  from  the  Old  Testament,  and 
particularly  from  its  poetical  books.  Now  to  go  back  from 
noonday  to  twilight  in  search  of  our  eschatology,  to  ignore 
the  plain  and  clear  teachings  of  the  New  Testament,  and 
adopt  as  a  basis  of  doctrine  the  poetic  utterances  of  a  pre- 
liminary, rudimental,  far  less  spiritual  dispensation,— does 
not  indicate  the  highest  wisdom  on  the  part  of  those  who 
pursue  this  course.  Yet  this  is  the  policy  adopted  by  the 

mortal-soulists  in  advocating  their  theory As  to 

the  next  citation,  Stuart  and  Hengstenberg  take  it  as  the 
statement  of  an  objection  afterwards  refuted.  The  latter 
says:  "The  manner  of  the  Scriptures  is  to  let  doubts  and 
murmurings  have  free  and  full  expression,  and  then  to 
vanquish  them  in  an  open  conflict  with  the  sword  of  faith." 

—"DISCREPANCIES  OF  THE  BlBLE,"  pp.  189,  190. 

For  the  living  know  that  they  shall  die:  but  the  dead 
know  not  anything,  neither  have  they  any  more  a  reward; 
for  the  memory  of  them  is  forgotten.  Also  their  love,  and 
their  hatred,  and  their  envy,  is  now  perished;  neither  have 
they  any  more  a  portion  forever  in  any  thing  that  is  done 
under  the  sun.  Whatsoever  thy  hand  findeth  to  do,  do  it 
with  thy  might;  for  there  is  no  work,  nor  device,  nor 
knowledge,  nor  wisdom,  in  the  grave,  whither  thou  goest. 
— Eccles.  9:5,  6, 10. 

This  is  supposed  to  be  a  strong  proof  of  uncon- 
sciousness after  death  ;  but,  in  our  judgment,  con- 
tains no  proof  whatever.  Right  here  we  call  at- 
tention to  one  of  the  plain  and  fundamental  rules 
of  interpretation.  We  state  it  in  our  own  language, 
but  the  correctness  of  the  sentiment  will  hardly 
be  denied.  It  is  this  : 

When  a  number  of  statements  are  made  in 
close  connection  with  each  other;  and  on  the  same 
topic,  they  must  all  be  received  without  modifica- 
tion, or  they  are  all  subject  to  modification.  It 
will  not  do  to  insist  that  some  of  them  must  be 
received  in  the  most  literal  sense,  while  others 
are  freely  modified. 


REDUCED  TO  AN  ABSURDITY.  165 

Let  us  make  the  application  to  the  text  in 
question.  Mortal-soulists  insist  that  the  declara- 
tion, "the  dead  know  not  anything,"  proves  that 
all  men  are  unconscious  between  death  and  the 
resurrection.  Let  us  see.  Solomon  also  says, 
"Neither  have  they  (the  dead)  any  more  a  reward." 
That  is,  to  receive  the  statement  without  any 
modification,  there  is  no  reward  for  any  individual 
after  this  life  !  "For  the  memory  of  them  is  for- 
gotten." That  is,  neither  God,  angels,  nor  men 
know  anything  about  them  after  death !  "Neither 
have  they  any  more  a  portion  forever  in  anything 
that  is  done  under  the  sun."  That  is,  their  portion 
is  ended.  There  is  no  resurrection,  no  reward,  after 
death.  Death  ends  all,  and  ends  it  for  evermore ! 
This  is  the  only  proper  interpretation  of  the  text 
if  we  admit  the  construction  put  upon  the  words, 
"the  dead  know  not  anything." 

If  it  be  claimed  that  they  have  no  more  re- 
ward in  this  world;  "the  memory  of  them  is  for- 
gotten" only  by  man  in  this  world  ;  they  have  no 
more  portion  here,  that  is,  "under  the  sun,"  then, 
we  reply,  the  other  statements  relied  upon  as 
proof  for  unconsciousness  must  be  modified  in  the 
same  way,  which  makes  it  to  teach  that  the  dead 
have  no  more  knowledge  here,  in  this  life,  "under 
the  sun,"  which  is  evidently  correct.  But  if  the 
interpretation  of  our  opponents  be  admitted  as 
correct,  then,  in  the  same  way,  we  can  prove  that 
the  living  are  unconscious ;  which,  if  true,  will, 
we  suppose,  give  to  us  a  still  "larger  hope !"  Here 
is  the  proof. 

He  is  proud,  knowing  nothing,  but  doting  about  ques- 
tions and  strifes  of  words,  whereof  cometh  envy,  strife, 
railings,  evil  surmisings.— 1  Tim.  6:4. 

And  with  Absalom  went  two  hundred  men  out  of  Jeru- 
salem, that  were  called;  and  they  went  in  their  simplicity, 
and  they  knew  not  anything.— 2  Sam.  15:11. 


166  LIVING  MEN  KNOW  NOTHING. 

In  the  first  passage  we  have  represented  a 
man  who  consents  not  to  wholesome  doctrine, 
"doting  about  questions  and  strifes  of  words," 
who  knows  nothing ;  that  is,  is  unconscious!  In 
the  second  passage  we  have  two  hundred  soldiers, 
selected  for  special  service,  "and  they  knew  not 
anything ;"  that  is,  they  were  unconscious !  Now 
the  connection  and  sense  of  these  passages  plainly 
show  what  is  meant ;  but  not  more  plainly  than 
in  the  other  texts  referred  to,  and  without  any 
proof  in  support  of  the  claim  for  unconsciousness 
after  death. 

In  the  tenth  verse  of  the  passage  under  con- 
sideration, the  writer  is  speaking  of  the  body  and 
the  grave.  We  believe  that  sheol,  in  this  passage, 
is  properly  rendered  grave.  Our  opponents  claim 
that  it  means  grave,  or  its  equivalent,  all  the 
time.  Well,  it  is  the  body  which  goes  down  into 
the  grave,  while  "the  spirit  returns  to  God  who 
gave  it."  James  says  "the  body  apart  from  the 
spirit  is  dead."  (James  2:26,  Kevised  Version.) 
So  in  the  grave,  where  the  body  goes  at  death, 
"there  is  no  work,  nor  device,  nor  knowledge,  nor 
wisdom."  But  it  is  claimed  that  the  pronoun 
"thou"  represents  the  whole  man.  We  have  al- 
ready shown  that  the  terms  man  and  soul  are 
sometimes  applied  to  the  whole  man,  body  and 
spirit,  sometimes  to  the  spirit  only,  and  sometimes 
to  the  body  only.  The  same  is  true  of  the  pro- 
nouns standing  for  man.  The  true  application 
must  be  determined  from  the  connection  in  which 
they  are  used.  It  is  as  Dr.  Young  affirms  in  his 
"HINTS  AND  HELPS  TO  BIBLE  INTERPRETATION." 
"The  SAME  word  has  frequently  a  DIFFERENT 
meaning  even  in  the  same  verse. 

For  in  death  there  is  no  remembrance  of  thee:    in  the 
grave  who  shall  give  thee  thanks  ?— Psalms  6:5. 


THOUGHTS — PURPOSES,  DESIGNS.  167 

If  grave  is  a  proper  rendering  of  sheol,  and  our 
opponents  will  admit  that  it  is,  then  the  question 
is  already  settled.  It  is  the  grave,  and  the  death 
of  that  which  goes  to  the  grave,  to  which  the 
Psalmist  refers. 

His  breath  goeth  forth,  he  returneth  to  his  earth;    in 
that  very  day  his  thoughts  perish.— Psalms  146:4. 

This,  with  the  statements  of  Solomon  in  the 
ninth  chapter  of  Ecclesiastes,  form  the  stronghold 
of  Adventism.  The  statements  of  Solomon  we 
have  disposed  of  and  found  no  proof  for  uncon- 
sciousness after  death ;  and  now,  if  we  can  fairly 
dispose  of  this  last  passage  we  need  not  fear  the 
balance. 

"Thoughts"  comes  from  the  Hebrew  eshtonoth, 
and  is  defined  by  Dr.  Young  to  mean  "thoughts, 
purposes."  The  word  thoughts,  in  the  text,  evi- 
dently means  purposes,  designs.  The  Psalmist  is 
.showing  how  much  safer  it  is  for  us  to  put  our 
trust  in  God  than  in  princes  and  the  sons  of  men. 
Why  is  it  safer?  Because  if  we  court  the  favor  of 
princes  and  the  great  ones  of  the  earth,  and  put 
our  trust  in  them,  we  thereby  neglect  our  service 
to  God  and  have  no  claim  upon  him  for  salvation. 
These  great  ones,  in  whom  we  have  put  oar  trust, 
are  as  liable  to  die  as  others,  and  when  they  do 
die,  their  designs  or  purposes  to  bestow  favor,  or 
blessings  upon  us,  according  to  our  expectations, 
are  wholly  overthrown.  They  "perish,"  that  is, 
"wholly  depart,"  or  they  are  "lost." 

We  select  men  whom  we  think  to  be  honest, 
and  yet  when  we  trust  them  with  a  few  thousands 
of  dollars,  we  require  them  to  give  bond.  Why  do 
we  do  so?  One  leading  reason  is  because  of  the 
uncertainty  of  life.  They  may  think  to  meet  all 
their  obligations  up  to  the  very  moment  of  death ; 
but  at  that  very  moment,  these  "thoughts  per- 
ish." Would  that  prove  them  to  be  unconscious 


168  HEZEKIAH  AND  JOB. 

after  death?  Certainly  not;  and  there  is  not  a 
particle  of  proof  for  the  theory  in  this  text  though 
it  is  frequently  pressed  into  service.  We  are  sim- 
ply exhorted  in  this  chapter,  to  put  our  trust  in 
God,  and  not  to  put  our  trust  in  man.  The  one 
has  all  power  to  save  and  bless,  and  he  never  fails; 
the  other  is  finite  and  weak,  and  when  death  oc- 
curs, he  is  no  longer  able  to  confer  those  favors 
which  it  is  within  the  power  of  man  to  be- 
stow, in  this  life.  Therefore,  "Happy  is  he  that 
hath  the  God  of  Jacob  for  his  help,  whose  hope  is 
in  the  Lord  his  God."  Verse  5. 

For  the  grave  can  not  praise  thee,  death  can  not  cele- 
brate thee:  they  that  go  down  into  the  pit  can  not  hope 
for  thy  truth.  The  living,  the  living,  he  shall  praise  thee, 
as  I  do  this  day:  the  father  to  the  children  shall  make 
known  thy  truth.— Isa.  38:18,19. 

We  have  before  noticed  that  the  inspiration 
of  the  Old  Testament  concerning  the  future  life 
is  very  limited.  And,  in  this  case,  there  is  no 
proof  that  Hezekiah  was  ever  an  authorized-teach- 
er for  God.  There  is  no  proof  that  he  was 
inspired.  Christ  and  the  apostles  never  endorsed 
him.  There  is  no  more  proof  that  Hezekiah  be- 
lieved in  the  unconsciousness  of  man  after  death, 
than  there  is  that  he  believed  that  death  ends  all, 
and  there  is  no  future  existence  whatever.  He 
simply  spake  according  to  his  own  feelings  and  his 
own  knowledge,  which,  apparently,  extended  no 
farther  than  the  death  of  the  body  and  the  grave. 
However,  the  main  point  is,  that  he  is  not  a  com- 
petent witness,  and  his  words  are  no  more  author- 
itative than  those  of  Eliphaz  and  Bildad  of  the 
book  of  Job. 

But  as  Job  also  is  one  of  the  leading  witnesses 
for  the  theory  we  oppose,  we  will  produce  one  of 
the  supposed  strongholds  from  his  book. 

But  man  dieth,  and  wasteth  away:  yea,  man  giveth  up 
the  ghost,  and  where  is  he?  As  the  waters  fail  from  the 


JOB  EXAMINED.  169 

sea,  and  the  flood  decayeth  and  drieth  up:  So  man  lieth 
down,  and  riseth  not:  till  the  heavens  be  no  more,  they 
shall  not  awake,  nor  be  raised  out  of  their  sleep.  Thou 
prevailest  forever  against  him,  and  he  passeth:  thou 
changest  his  countenance,  and  sendeth  him  away.  His  sons 
come  to  honor,  and  he  knoweth  it  not;  and  they  are  brought 
low,  but  he  perceiveth  it  not  of  them.— Job  14:10, 11. 12, 20, 21. 

The  reader's  attention  is  again  called  to 
Chapter  one  of  this  work  that  he  may  know 
what  estimate  to  put  upon  the  utterances  of 
Job.  The  hand  of  affliction  was  upon  him. 
His  error  was  on  the  side  of  doubt  and  skep- 
ticism. The  Lord  said  to  him,  "Who  is  this  that 
darkeneth  counsel  by  words  without  knowl- 
edge ?  "  (Job  38 : 2.)  And  Job  confessed,  "I  utter- 
ed that  I  understood  not ;  things  too  wonderful 
for  me,  which  I  knew  not."  But  let  Job  be  more 
fully  heard  on  this  topic. 

O  that  thou  wouldst  hide  me  in  the  grave,  that  thou 
wouldst  keep  me  secret,  until  thy  wrath  be  past,  that  thou 
wouldst  appoint  me  a  set  time,  and  remember  me!  If  a 
man  die,  shall  he  live  again  ?  all  the  days  of  my  appointed 
time  will  I  wait,  till  my  change  come.  Thou  shalt  call,  and 
I  will  answer  thee:  thou  wilt  have  a  desire  to  the  work  of 
thy  hands.— verses  13, 14, 15. 

These  three  verses  occupy  a  place  between  the 
first  three  and  last  two  already  quoted.  Now 
there  is  no  support  for  the  claim  that  the  first  five 
verses  quoted  should  be  regarded  as  literal  and 
the  last  three  as  figurative.  If  all  are  literal,  then 
the  last  three  prove  consciousness  between  death 
and  the  resurrection.  "All  the  days  of  my  ap- 
pointed time  will  I  wait  till  my  change  come. 
Thou  shalt  call,  and  I  will  answer  thee."  To  wait, 
"rest  in  expectation  and  silence"  to  hear  and  an- 
swer the  call,  necessarily  imply  consciousness.  So 
these  verses  just  as  plainly  prove  consciousness  as 
do  the  other  verses  cited  prove  unconsciousness. 
Our  opponents  find  no  real  support  here. 

One  thing  is  certainly  inconsistent  in  our  op- 
ponents. They  demand  direct  and  positive  proof 


170  AARON  ELLIS  ANSWERED. 

for  the  immortality  of  the  soul  and  consciousness 
after  death,  and  then  adduce  passages  in  support 
of  their  theory  from  which  nothing  more  than  a 
doubtful  inference  can  be  drawn,  at  the  best.  To 
illustrate:  Mr.  Aaron  Ellis,  in  "BIBLE  VERSUS 
TRADITION,"  p.  119,  undertakes  to  prove  that  man 
is  unconscious  after  death  by  a  class  of  evidences 
which  he  thinks  proves  that  those  who  are  dead 
know  nothing  of  what  is  taking  place  on  the 
earth.  He  quotes  Isa.  64:18;  Luke  10:23;  2:26, 
28 ;  Job  14  chapter,  as  proof  texts,  and  then  adds  : 

We  have  here  the  testimony  of  Job,  Isaiah,  and  Jesus 
Christ,  that  the  dead  have  no  knowledge  of  what  is  passing 
upon  the  earth. 

Now  admit,  for  argument's  sake,  that  the 
statements  of  Job  are  absolutely  correct ;  and  that 
he  does  say  that  after  a  man  dies  "his  sons  come  to 
honor,  and  he  knoweth  it  not;  and  they  are. 
brought  low,  but  he  perceiveth  it  not  of  them," 
does  that  prove  that  the  dead  are  unconscious  ? 
If  it  does,  then  it  follows,  logically,  that  in  order 
to  be  conscious,  they  must  know  all  about  what  is 
transpiring  in  the  whole  universe  of  God  !  For, 
there  is  no  more  evidence  that  knowledge  of  what 
a  man's  posterity  are  doing  on  the  earth,  after  he 
has  been  taken  by  death,  is  a  necessary  condition 
of  consciousness,  than  there  is  that  knowledge  of 
any  and  all  events,  taking  place  in  the  universe  of 
God,  is  an  essential  condition  of  consciousness. 
(In  these  statements  we  accept,  of  course,  sheol 
and  hades  as  the  abodes  of  departed  spirits.) 
Death  is  a  great  change  of  location  and  condi- 
tions; and  what  degree  of  knowledge  we  may 
possess  of  things  passing  upon  the  earth,  after  our 
departure,  is  not  revealed  in  the  Scriptures.  And 
to  affirm  that  because  the  dead  are  not  cognizant 
of  certain  events  passing  upon  the  earth,  or  be- 
cause we  infer  from  certain  scriptures  that  they 


PERISH  CONSTRUED.  171 

are  not,  they  are,  therefore,  unconscious,  is  eqiva- 
lent  to  saying  that  because  we  do  not  know  what 
the  saints  and  angels  in  heaven  are  now  doing, 
therefore,  we  are  unconscious!  Or,  because  we 
leave  our  children  and  go  to  some  distant  land  and 
while  there  we  know  nothing  of  their  prosperity 
or  adversity,  therefore,  we  are  unconscious!  The 
inference  is  neither  necessary  nor  legitimate,  and  the 
whole  argument  is  far-fetched. 

Then  they  also  which  are  fallen  asleep  in  Christ  are 
perished.  If  in  this  life  only,  we  have  hope  in  Christ,  we  are  of 
all  men  most  miserable.— 1  Cor.  15:18,  19, 

If,  as  mortal-soulists  claim,  the  word  * 'perish" 
denotes  an  end  to  conscious  existence,  then  "they 
also  which  are  fallen  asleep  in  Christ  are  perished," 
even  if  there  be  a  resurrection  of  the  dead.  But 
if  perished  means  destroyed  in  the  sense  of  being 
lost,  or  not  saved,  then  the  argument  of  the  apos- 
tle is  this:  "If  there  is  no  resurrection  of  the 
dead,  then  Christ  has  not  been  raised ;  and  if 
Christ  has  not  been  raised  from  the  dead,  as  we 
have  testified,  then  you  are  yet  in  your  sins.  Our 
testimony  is  false,  our  preaching  vain,  and  all  who 
have  fallen  asleep  in  Christ  are  perished."  This 
is  the  argument  of  the  apostle  briefly  stated  in  our 
own  words.  He  predicates  the  doctrine  of  the 
resurrection  upon  the  fact  that  Christ  had  been 
raised.  If  Christ  had  not  been  raised,  then  the 
whole  gospel  plan  was  a  failure,  and  they  were  in 
a  lost  or  unsaved  condition.  This  is  all  there  is 
in  the  text.  The  position  of  our  opponents  on 
this  text  makes  Paul  plainly  contradict  his  state- 
ments found  elsewhere  as  we  have  already  seen. 

The  interpretations  of  our  opponents  on  texts 
selected  from  Job,  Psalms,  etc.,  are  greatly  at 
fault  and  if  applied  to  other  texts  would  prove 
that  there  is  no  future  life,  no  resurrection  from 


172  FAVORITE  TEXTS. 

the  dead.  (That  which  proves  too  much  proves 
nothing.)  In  support  of  this  claim  we  adduce  the 
following  texts  which  plainly  show  that  those 
writers  who  seem  to  favor  unconsciouness  after 
death,  just  as  plainly  deny  any  conscious  existence 
for  man  beyond  the  grave. 

For  he  remembered  th  at  they  were  but  flesh ;  a  wind  that 
passeth  away,  and  cometh  not  again.— Psalms  78:39. 

I  am  counted  with  them  that  go  down  into  the  pit:  I  am 
as  a  man  that  hath  no  strength:  Free  among  the  dead, 
like  the  slain  that  lie  in  the  grave,  whom  thou  remember- 
est  no  more  and  they  are  cut  off  from  thy  hand.  Thou 
hast  laid  me  in  the  lowest  pit,  in  darkness,  in  the  deeps. 
Thy  wrath  lieth  hard  upon  me,  and  thou  hast  afflicted  mo 
with  all  thy  waves.  Selah.  Thou  hast  put  away  mine  ac- 
quaintance far  from  me;  thou  hast  made  me  an  abomina- 
tion unto  them:  I  am  shut  up,  and  T  cannot  come  forth. 
Mine  eye  mourneth  by  reason  of  affliction:  Lord,  I  have 
called  daily  upon  thee,  I  have  stretched  out  my  hands  unto 
thee.  Wilt  thou  shew  wonders  to  the  dead  ?  shall  the  dead 
arise  and  praise  thee  ?  Selah.  Shall  thy  loving-kindness 
be  declared  in  the  grave  ?  or  thy  faithfulness  in  destruc- 
tion ?— Psalms  88:4-11. 

For  he  knoweth  our  frame;  heremembereth  that  we  are 
dust.  As  for  man,  his  days  are  as  grass:  as  a  flower  of  the 
field,  so  he  flourisheth.  For  the  wind  passeth  over  it,  and 
It  is  gone;  and  the  place  thereof  shall  know  it  no  more.— 
Psalms  193:14-16. 

O  remember  that  my  life  Is  wind:  mine  eye  shall  no 
more  see  good.  The  eye  of  him  that  hath  seen  me  shall  see 
me  no  more;  thine  eyes  are  upon  me.  and  I  am  not.  As  the 
cloud  is  consumed  and  vanislieth  away:  so  he  that  goeth 
down  to  the  grave  shall  come  up  no  more. — Job  7:79. 

Are  not  my  days  few  ?  cease  then,  and  let  me  alone, 
that  I  may  take  comfort  a  little.  Before  I  go  whence  I 
shall  not  return,  even  to  the  land  of  darkness,  and  the 
shadow  of  death:  A  land  of  darkness,  as  darkness  itself; 
and  of  the  shadow  of  death,  without  any  order,  and  where 
the  light  is  as  darkness.— Job  10:20-22. 

When  a  few  years  are  come,  then  I  shall  go  the  way 
whence  I  shall  not  return.— Job  16:22. 

Who  shall  declare  his  way  to  his  face?  and  who  shall 
repay  him  what  he  hath  done  ?  Yet  shall  he  be  brought  to 
the  grave,  and  shall  remain  in  the  tomb.— Job  21:31,  32. 

Because  the  spoiler  is  come  upon  her,  even  upon  Baby- 
lon, and  her  mighty  men  are  taken,  every  one  of  their  bows 


STRONG  EXPRESSIONS  NOTED.  173 

is  broken:  for  the  Lord  God  of  recompense  shall  surely  requite. 
And  I  will  make  drunk  her  princes,  and  her  wise  men,  her  captains, 
and  her  rulers,  and  her  mighty  men;  and  they  shall  sleep  a  per- 
petual sleep,  and  not  wake,  saiththe  King,  whose  name  is  the  Lord 
of  Hosts.— Jer.  51:  56,  57. 

Let  us  note  a  few  of  the  strong  expressions 
found  in  these  passages:  "They  are  but  flesh;  a 
wind  that  passe th  away  and  cometh  not  again." 

"Like  the  slain  that  lie  in  the  grave,  whom 
thou  rememberest  no  more;  and  they  are  cut  off  from 
thy  hand." 

"Before  I  go  whence  I  shall  not  return,  even  to 
the  land  of  darkness  and  the  shadow  of  death." 

"Mine  eyes  shall  no  more  see  good." 

"So  he  that  goeth  down  to  the  grave  shall 
come  up  no  more." 

"Yet  shall  I  be  brought  to  the  grave,  and 
shall  remain  in  the  tomb." 

"And  they  shall  sleep  a  perpetual  sleep,  and  not 
wake,  saith  the  King,  whose  name  is  the  Lord  of 
Hosts." 

With  the  same  kind  of  construction  put  upon 
other  texts,  by  our  opponents,  these  scriptures 
teach  positively  that  the  grave  is  the  final  doom 
of  all  men!  Those  who  have  thus  interpreted  the 
hyperbolical  statements  of  the  Old  Testament, 
should  do  one  of  two  things:  Either  confess  that 
their  witnesses  are  not  to  be  depended  upon;  or 
that  their  interpretations  are  egregiously  at  fault. 
Which  is  it? 

If  it  be  still  insisted  that  there  is  no  paradise 
till  we  have  it  restored  in  the  New  Earth;  no 
hell,  in  the  sense  of  punishment,  till  the  day  of 
judgment,  we  kindly  ask  for  proof.  Do  not  mis- 
take our  meaning.  We  do  not  deny  the  future 
paradise  on  the  renewed  earth,  nor  do  we  deny  the 
existence  of  hell  at  the  judgment  day;  but  we 
claim,  and  have  already  proved,  that  the  conditions 
of  paradise  and  gehenna  (hell)  may  and  do  ante- 


174  PARADISE  AND  HELL. 

date  the  judgment  day.  Jesus  said  to  the  peni- 
tent thief,  "Today  shalt  thou  be  with  me  in  par- 
adise." Did  Jesus  know  whether  there  was  any 
paradise?  Paul  said,  "I  knew  a  man  in  Christ 
above  fourteen  years  ago.  .  .  .  How  that  he 
was  caught  up  into  paradise."  Did  paradise  exist 
at  that  time?  It  did,  if  Paul  can  be  depended 
upon.  It  is  not  simply  location  that  makes  heav- 
en or  hell,  but,  largely,  conditions  of  bliss  or  pun- 
ishment. May  not  these  conditions  obtain  in  the 
intermediate  state?  Certainly.  We  have  shown 
that  they  do,  and  that  they  obtain  to  a  certain 
extent  in  this  life.  The  heaven  of  the  righteous 
begins  here,  and  the  hell  of  the  wicked  frequently 
begins  here  also. 

We  here  present  a  little  more  testimony  con- 
cerning the  present  existence  of  hell. 

Then  Jonah  prayed  unto  the  Lord  his  God  out  of  the 
fish's  belly.  And  said,  I  cried  by  reason  of  mine  affliction 
unto  the  Lord,  and  he  heard  me;  out  of  the  belly  of  hell 
cried  I,  and  thou  heardst  my  voice.— Jonah  2:1,  2. 

Whoso  is  simple,  let  him  turn  in  hither:  and  as  for 
him  that  wanteth  understanding,  she  saith  to  him,  Stolen 
waters  are  sweet,  and  bread  eaten  in  secret  is  pleasant. 
But  he  knoweth  not  that  the  dead  are  there;  and  that  her 
guests  are  in  the  depths  of  hell.— Pro v.  9:16-18. 

And  the  sea  gave  up  the  dead  which  were  in  it;  and  death 
and  hell  delivered  up  the  dead  which  were  in  them ;  and  they 
were  judged  every  man  according  to  their  works.  And  death 
and  hell  were  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire.  This  is  the  second 
death.  And  whosoever  was  not  found  written  in  the  book 
of  life  was  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire.— Rev.  20:13-15. 

And  the  tongue  is  a  fire,  a  world  of  iniquity:  so  is  the 
tongue  among  our  members,  that  it  defileth  the  whole 
body,  and  setteth  oxi  fire  the  course  of  nature,  and  it  is  set 
on  fire  of  hell.— James  3:6. 

Woe  unto  you,  scribes  and  Pharisees,  hypocrites!  for  ye 
compass  sea  and  land  to  make  one  proselyte,  and  when  he 
is  made,  ye  make  him  twofold  more  the  child  of  hell  than 
yourselves.— Matt.  23:15, 

Jonah  cried  "out  of  the  belly  of  hell"  (sheoi), 
but  it  was  a  place  of  conscious  suffering  from 


EXEGESIS  OF  HELL.  175 

which  Jonah  cried  unto  the  Lord.  This  proves 
that  sheol  does  not  necessarily  mean  a  place  of  sil- 
ence and  unconsciousness,  as  our  opponents  claim. 

The  passage  from  Proverbs,  with  preceding 
verses,  describes  the  alurements  of  an  evil  minded 
and  disreputable  woman.  Those  who  are  so  un- 
fortunate as  to  give  way  to  her  evil  enticements, 
go  "into  the  depths  of  hell"  (sheol),  where  the  dead 
are.  They  are  dead  in  sin  because  separated  from 
righteousness ;  and  the  supposed  enjoyment  is  in 
the  depths  of  sheol  (uthe  unseen  state"),  but  they 
are  not  conditions  of  bliss,  but  are  as  hellish  in 
their  character  as  if  it  had  stated  that  they  were 
in  the  fires  of  gehenna. 

The  passage  from  Eevelations  describes  the 
second  or  general  resurrection,  and  the  general 
judgment.  "Death  and  hell  (hades)  delivered  up 
the  dead  which  were  in  them."  It  will  not  do  to 
say  that  death  and  hell  represent  the  same  place 
for  if  they  do  the  pronoun  should  be  in  the  singu- 
lar number,  that  is,  it,  instead  of  "them,"  as  it 
stands  in  the  text.  By  a  figure  of  speech,  meton- 
omy,  death  evidently  represents  the  grave,  and 
hell  the  abode  of  captive  spirits.  "Death  and 
hell  were  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire."  That  ig, 
the  inmates  of  death  and  hell  whose  names  were 
"not  found  written  in  the  book  of  life,"  were  cast 
into  the  lake  of  fire.  The  point  is  that  there  is  a 
place  in  hades  where  wicked  spirits  are  held  in  cap- 
tMty  till  the  day  of  judgment. 

The  passage  from  James  informs  us  that  an 
unruly  and  evil  tongue  "is  set  on  fire  of  hell." 
Hell,  in  this  passage,  comes  from  gehenna,  not 
hades.  Question.  Can  the  tongue  be  set  on  fire  of 
hell  (gehenna,)  if  hell  does  not  exist?  That  is,  can 
you  start  a  fire  with  a  match  when  there  are  no 
matches  ?  Now  our  opponents  must  either  admit 
this  gehenna  to  be  the  one  into  which  the  wicked 


176  THE  RESURRECTION. 

will  be  cast,  elsewhere  described  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, or  else  admit  what  they  have  all  along- 
ridiculed,  viz.,  that  there  is  a  plurality  of  hells? 

The  last  passage  quoted  contains  one  of  the 
strong  denunciations  of  Christ  against  the  scribes 
and  Pharisees  He  said,  "Ye  compass  sea  and 
land  to  make  one  proselyte,  and  when  he  is  made, 
ye  make  him  twofold  more  the  child  of  hell  [gehenna] 
than  yourselves." 

Here  the  scribes  and  Pharisees,  together  with 
their  proselytes  are  declared  to  be  the  children  of 
hell  (gehenna).  Now  it  is  not  difficult  to  see  that 
if  gehenna  has  no  existence,  and  can  have  none  till 
the  day  of  judgment,  it  could  not  possibly  have 
been  the  father  of  a  large  or  small  family  in  the 
days  when  Jesus  was  on  the  earth.  So  we  see  that 
here,  as  elsewhere,  the  positions  of  our  opponents 
are  not  sufficiently  comprehensive  to  admit  all  the 
truth.  They  have  carefully  guarded  themselves 
against  what  they  understood  to  be  erroneous 
teaching,  but  in  doing  so  have  missed  their  way 
and  have  gone  to  an  opposite  extreme;  and  here,  as 
elsewhere,  the  truth  lies  between  the  extremes. 


CHAPTER  II. 


THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  DEAD  AND  ETERNAL 
LIFE-ETERNAL  LIFE  BEGINS  WHEN  WE  OBEY  THE 
GOSPEL. 

We  agree  with  Adventists,  and  some  others, 
in  the  belief  that  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  as 
set  forth  in  the  Scriptures,  is  one  of  the  grandest 
and  most  important  principles  of  the  gospel. 
That  mortal-soulists  who  accept  the  Bible  as  a 
proper  standard  of  evidence,  should  so  teach,  is 
certainly  to  their  credit.  This  principle  compre- 
hends a  glorious  and  final  manifestation  of  the  re- 


CHRIST'S  GREAT  WORK.  177 

demptive  power  of  the  gospel  as  wrought  out 
through  Jesus  Christ. 

For  as  the  Father  raiseth  up  the  dead,  and  quickeneth 

them;  even  so  the  Son  quickeneth  whom  he  will 

Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you.  He  that  heareth  my  word, 
and  believeth  on  him  that  sent  me,  hath  everlasting  life, 
and  shall  not  come  into  condemnation;  but  is  passed  from 
death  unto  life.  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  The  hour 
is  coining,  and  now  is,  when  the  dead  shall  hear  the  voice 
of  the  Son  of  God:  and  they  that  hear  shall  live.  For  as 
the  Father  hath  life  in  himself,  so  hath  he  given  to  the  Son 
to  have  life  in  himself;  And  hath  given  him  authority  to 
execute  judgment  also,  because  he  is  the  Son  of  Man.  Mar- 
vel not  at  this:  for  the  hour  is  coming,  in  the  which  all 
that  are  in  the  graves  shall  hear  his  voice,  And  shall 
come  forth;  they  that  have  done  good,  unto  the  resurrec- 
tion of  life,  and  they  that  have  done  evil,  unto  the  resur- 
rection of  damnation.— John  5:21,  24-29. 

After  his  own  glorious  triumph  over  death  and 
hell  (hades,)  he  spoke  these  words  to  his  disciples : 
"All  power  is  given  unto  me  in  heaven  and  in 
earth."  (Matt.  28:18.)  And  appearing  to  John 
on  the  Isle  of  Patmos  while  he  "was  in  the  spirit 
on  the  Lord's  day,"  he  uttered  these  significant 
words :  "I  am  he  that  liveth,  and  was  dead  ;  and, 
behold,  I  am  alive  forevermore,  Amen  :  and  have 
the  keys  of  hell  and  of  death."  (Rev.  1 : 18.)  What 
a  glorious  triumph  indeed  !  But  it  was  a  triumph, 
not  only  over  the  grave,  but  over  all  hades,  which 
includes  the  world  of  departed  spirits. 

The  prophecies  relating  to  Christ's  life,  death, 
resurrection,  and  his  whole  work  while  on  the 
earth,  received  a  perfect  and  literal  fulfillment. 
Why,  then,  will  not  these  prophecies  relating  to 
his  work  and  mission  beyond  the  grave  receive  a 
like  fulfillment?  In  the  last  chapter,  the  read- 
er's attention  was  called  to  the  important  work 
which  Christ  was  to  do  for  the  departed  ;  and  we 
cite  it  now  as  an  important  and  necessary  part  of 
the  great  preparatory  work  for  the  resurrection  of 
the  dead.  For  the  sake  of  the  connection  we  re- 


178.  PROPHECIES  OF  CHRIST. 

produce  some  of  the  prophetic  words  relating  to 
that  work. 

As  for  thee  also,  by  the  blood  of  thy  covenant  I  have 
sent  forth  thy  prisoners  out  of  the  pit  wherein  is  no  water. 
Turn  you  to  the  stronghold,  ye  prisoners  of  hope:  even  to- 
day do  I  declare  that  I  will  render  double  unto  thee. 

To  opon  the  blind  eyes,  to  bring  out  the  prisoners  from 
the  prison,  and  them  that  sit  in  darkness  out  of  the  prison 
house. 

He  hath  sent  me  to  proclaim  liberty  to  the  captives,  and 
the  opening  of  the  prison  to  them  that  are  bound. 

And  they  shall  be  gathered  together,  as  prisoners  are 
gathered  in  the  pit,  and  shall  be  shut  up  in  the  prison,  and 
after  many  days  shall  they  be  visited. 

We  call  attention,  once  more,  to  what  is  evi- 
dently Peter's  exegesis  of  this  part  of  Christ's 
work  so  clearly  outlined  in  prophecy.  He  says  : 

By  which  also  he  went  and  preached  unto  the  spirits  in 
prison;  which  sometime  were  disobedient,  when  once  the 
long-suffering  of  God  waited  in  the  days  of  Noah,  etc. 

For,  for  this  cause  was  the  gospel  preached  also  to  them 
that  are  dead,  that  they  might  be  judged  according  to  men 
in  the  flesh  but  live  according  to  God  in  the  spirit. 

As  we  have  already  seen,  when  Jesus  comes  to 
raise  the  righteous  dead  and  reign  with  his  peo- 
ple, he  will  bring  the  saints  with  him.  And  at 
the  general  resurrection,  they  come  forth  from 
death  (the  grave)  and  hell  (hades)  and  all  whose 
names  are  "not  found  written  in  the  book  of  life" 
are  "cast  into  the  lake  of  fire."  All  this  shows 
that  the  resurrection  consists  of  something  more 
than  bringing  forth  the  body  from  the  grave. 

We  are  to  be  judged  according  to  our  works. 
The  manner  in  which  we  have  lived  here,  consider- 
ing our  opportunities,  of  course,  will  determine  our 
fate  or  condition,  there.  "And  they  were  judged 
every  man  according  to  their  works."  (Rev.  20  : 
13.)  "For  the  Son  of  Man  shall  come  in  the  glory 
of  his  Father  with  his  angels ;  and  then  he  shall 
reward  every  man  according  to  his  works."  (Matt. 
16:27.)  "For  as  in  Adam  all  die,  even  so  in 


ACCOUNTABILITY.  179 

Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive.  But  every  man  in 
his  own  order ;  Christ  the  first  fruits ;  afterwards 
they  that  are  Christ's  at  his  coming."  (1  Cor.  15 : 
22,  23.) 

From  these  testimonies,  which  are  not  a  tithe 
of  what  might  be  presented,  we  learn  that  the 
same  individuals  who  live  here  and  make  their 
own  record,  shall  answer  to  God  in  the  day  of 
judgment.  "For  we  must  all  appear  before  the 
judgment  seat  of  Christ;  that  every  one  may  re- 
ceive the  things  done  in  his  body,  according  to 
that  he  hath  done,  whether  it  be  good  or  bad."  (2 
Cor.  5:10.)  "So  then  every  one  of  us  shall  give 
account  of  himself  to  God."  (Bom.  14  :12.)  This 
being  true,  and  it  is  a  grand  and  solemn  truth,  it 
becomes  necessary  that  there  should  be  an  unbro- 
ken connection  between  this  life  and  the  resurrec- 
tion ;  between  time  and  eternity.  Such  connec- 
tion is  provided  for  in  the  facts  of  the  immortality 
of  the  soul  and  the  intermediate  state.  Deny 
these,  and  the  connection  is  lost ;  and  man's  ac- 
countability to  God,  and  his  condition  in  the  res- 
urrection as  the  result  of  his  works  here,  lose  their 
grandeur  and  become  wild  and  meaningless  vaga- 
ries of  the  mind  !  If  our  experiences  here— our 
trials  and  blessings — are  to  be  utilized  in  the  great 
beyond,  then  they  must  be  kept  in  store,  some- 
where, between  death  and  the  resurrection.  If 
the  whole  man  goes  into  the  grave,  at  death,  and 
in  a  little  while  becomes  a  putrid  mass  of  corrup- 
tion, what  becomes  of  our  experiences  and  our  ac- 
countability to  God  ?  If  the  whole  man  goes  into 
the  grave,  and  his  resurrection  consists  only  of  a 
new  man  made  from  the  same  material,  dust; 
then  there  is  no  difference  between  the  resurrec- 
tion and  creation ;  and  when  the  new  man  comes 
forth,  in  the  resurrection,  he  will  be  as  wholly 
undeveloped,  spiritually  and  morally,  as  was  Adam 


180  DEATH  AND  RESURRECTION. 

when  first  made  from  the  dust  of  the  ground  !  But 
as  we  have  proved  death  to  be  a  separation  of  body 
and  spirit,  so  we  find  that  the  resurrection  is  a  re- 
union of  body  and  spirit.  Thus  the  whole  HIM n, 
with  an  immortalized  body,  stands  before  God  in 
the  judgment,  to  receive  a  fulness  of  glory,  or  the 
sentence  of  condemnation.  Christian  character 
will  admit  him  through  the  pearly  gates  into  the 
city  of  light  and  peace ;  a  want  of  this  character 
will  render  it  necessary  that  he  should  be  thrust 
out  and  placed  where  he  properly  belongs.  But 
how  grand  and  consoling  is  the  thought  that  all 
will  have  ample  opportunity  to  receive  the  gospel 
and  live  it,  and  none  will  be  finally  cast  off  except 
those  who  wilfully  reject  the  truth. 

There  are,  then,  of  necessity,  two  distinct  res- 
urrections. One  of  "life,"  and  the  other  of  "con- 
demnation." One  transpires  in  close  connection 
with  Christ's  second  advent ;  the  other  after  the 
lapse  of  a  thousand  years  and  "a  little  season." 
Paul,  speaking  of  the  resurrection  said :  "Christ 
the  first  fruits ;  afterward  they  that  are  Christ's 
at  his  coming."  (1  Cor.  15:23.)  "And  the  dead 
in  Christ  shall  rise  first."  (1  Thes.  4 : 13-18.)  Read 
all  of  Revelations  twentieth  chapter,  from  which 
we  extract  a  few  statements.  "Blessed  and  holy 
is  he  that  hath  part  in  the  first  resurrection  :  on 
such  the  second  death  hath  no  power,  but  they 
shall  be  priests  of  God  and  of  Christ,  and  shall 
reign  with  him  a  thousand  years.  And  when  the 
thousand  years  are  expired,  Satan  shall  be  loosed 
out  of  his  prison,"  etc.  Then,  beginning  with  the 
twelfth  verse,  we  have  a  description  of  the  second 
or  general  resurrection  and  judgment.  John  says  : 
"I  saw  the  dead,  small  and  great,  stand  before 
God ;  and  the  books  were  opened ;  and  another 
book  was  opened,  which  is  the  book  of  life  :  and 
the  dead  were  judged  out  of  those  things  which 


TWO  RESURRECTIONS.  181 

were  written  in  the  books,  according  to  their 
works."  God's  people,  the  saints,  the  faithful  and 
true,  come  forth  in  the  first  resurrection  ;  but  it 
will  be  more  than  a  thousand  years  later  when  the 
wicked  come  forth.  In  this  arrangement  there  is, 
evidently,  a  manifestation  of  infinite  wisdom  and 
love.  "God  is  love."  It  is  our  blessed  privilege  to 
receive  the  truth,  remain  faithful  and  true,  and 
come  forth  in  the  first  resurrection.  "On  such  the 
second  death  shall  have  no  power." 

"WHEN  WILL  THE  SAINTS  OBTAIN  ETERNAL 
LIFE,  OR  IMMORTALITY?"  This  is  the  caption  to 
a  short  article  from  the  pen  of  Wm.  Sheldon, 
found  in  "ADYENTISM,"  pp.  114,  115,  116.  He  be- 
gins the  answer  as  follows : 

The  following  queries  often  arise: 

1.  "Is  not  immortality  the  same  as  eternal  life  ?"     Ans. 
Strictly  speaking,  immortality,  instead  of  being  eternal 
life,  is  the  basis  of  eternal  life,  and  eternal  life  is  the  result 
of  immortality;  so  that  those  who  are  made  immortal  will 
be  sure  of  eternal  life,  and  those  who  have  eternal  life  have 
it  because  they  are  immortal;    immortality  is  the  cause, 
eternal  life  the  result. 

2.  "Are  not  Christians  said  to  possess  eternal  life  ?  and 
are  they  not  therefore  immortal  ?"     Ans.     The  Christian 
has  eternal  life  in  prospect,  but  not  in  actual  possession. 

The  above  contains  some  admissions  which 
will  help  us  to  get  at  the  truth.  If  immortality 
and  eternal  life  are  not  identical,  then  all  those 
scriptures  which  declare  that  eternal  life  is  given 
to  the  Saints  only,— that  is,  to  those  who  are  in 
Christ — are  no  proof  that  the  wicked  are  desti- 
tute of  immortality,  although  they  are  constantly 
so  used  by  our  opponents.  If  immortality  pre- 
cedes eternal  life,  as  Mr.  Sheldon  affirms,  then  the 
latter  is  not  simply  conscious  existence,  but  a 
condition  of  conscious  existence;  and  death,  or 
eternal  death,  is  not  a  blotting  out  of  conscious 
being,  but  an  opposite  condition  of  conscious  ex- 
istence. This  shows,  then,  that  life  and  death, 


182  ALL  TO  BE  RESURRECTED. 

as  these  terms  are  employed  in  the  gospel  record , 
represent — not  consciousness  on  the  one  hand  and 
unconsciousness  on  the  other  hand,  but,  rather, 
opposite  conditions  of  consciousness.  The  facts 
that  the  righteous,  in  this  world,  are  declared  to 
be  in  actual  possession  of  eternal  life,  as  we  shall 
presently  see,  and  the  wicked  destitute  of  it, 
prove  this  position  to  be  correct. 

But  Mr.  Sheldon  makes  the  possession  of  eter- 
nal life  wholly  dependent  upon  the  resurrection, 
and,  at  the  same  time,  claims  that  the  righteous 
only  will  receive  it.  Now  if  it  can  be  shown  that 
all,  the  wicked  as  well  as  the  righteous,  will  be 
raised  toimmortaiity,  then,  according  to  Mr.  Shel- 
don's theory,  all  will  receive  eternal  life.  He  says : 
"Strictly  speaking,  immortality  instead  of  being 
eternal  life,  is  the  basis  of  eternal  life,  and  eternal 
life  is  the  result  of  immortality ;  so  that  those  who 
are  made  immortal  will  be  sure  of  eternal  life,"  etc. 

In  the  fifteenth  chapter  of  1  Corinthians,  Paul 
furnishes  us  with  a  general  treatise  on  the  resur- 
rection ;  and  the  very  language  which  he  employs 
shows  that  this  treatise  is  not  confined  to  the  res- 
urrection of  the  covenant  people  of  God,  but  treats 
of  the  resurrection  in  its  universal  application  to 
the  race. 

Now  if  Christ  be  preached  that  he  rose  from  the  dead, 
how  say  some  among  you  that  there  is  no  resurrection  of 
the  dead?  But  if  there  be  no  resurrection  of  the  dead, 
then  is  Christ  not  risen:  And  if  Christ  be  not  risen,  then 
is  our  preaching  vain,  and  your  faith  is  also  vain.  Yea, 
and  we  are  found  false  witnesses  of  God;  because  we  have 
testified  of  God  that  he  raised  up  Christ:  whom  he  raised 
not  up,  if  so  be  that  the  dead  rise  not.  For  if  the  dead  rise 
not,  then  is  not  Christ  raised:  And  if  Christ  be  not  raised 
your  faith  is  vain;  ye  are  yet  in  your  sins.  For  since  by 
man  came  death,  by  man  came  also  the  resurrection  of  the 
dead.  For  as  in  Adam  all  die,  even  so  in  Christ  shall  all  be 
made  alive.  But  every  man  in  his  own  order:  Christ  the 
first-fruits;  afterward  they  that  are  Christ's  at  his  coming 
—1  Cor.  15:12-17,  21-23. 


PAUL'S  HOPE.  183 

Paul's  hope  was  that  all  would  be  redeemed 
from  the  grave ;  though  if  the  wicked  are  raised  to 
mortality,  with  all  classes  who  have  failed  to  em- 
brace the  gospel  in  this  life,  and  then  immedi- 
ately judged  and  reduced  to  ashes  by  means  of  lit- 
eral fire,  that  is,  to  a  state  of  unconscious,  eternal 
oblivion,  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  the  resurrection 
of  the  unrighteous  could  constitute  a  part  of  his 
hope !  Paul  answers  for  his  faith  and  hope  while 
before  Felix,  the  governor,  in  the  following  lan- 
guage ; 

But  this  I  confess  unto  thee,  that  after  the  way  which 
they  call  heresy,  so  worship  I  the  God  of  my  fathers, 
believing  all  things  which  are  written  in  the  law  and  in  the 
prophets;  and  have  hope  toward  God,  which  they  them- 
selves also  allow,  that  there  shall  be  a  resurrection  of  the 
dead,  both  of  the  just  and  the  unjust.— Acts  24:14, 15. 

This  is  the  same  resurrection  to  which  Paul 
calls  our  attention  in  Corinthians— the  resurrec- 
tion of  all  men.  "For  as  in  Adam  all  die,  even  so 
in  Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive."  In  verses  41, 
42,  he  speaks  of  different  degrees  of  reward  typi- 
fied by  the  sun,  moon  and  stars,  and  then  proceeds 
to  inform  us  in  what  condition  the  dead  will  come 
forth.  "So  also  is  the  resurrection  of  the  dead. 
It  is  sown  in  corruption ;  it  is  raised  in  incorrup- 
tion :  it  is  sown  in  dishonor ;  it  is  raised  in  glory : 
it  is  sown  in  weakness ;  it  is  raised  in  power:  it 
is  sown  a  natural  body ;  it  is  raised  a  spiritual 
body.  (Yerses  42,  43,  44.) 

From  the  first  sentence  of  the  last  quotation, 
it  is  evident  that  what  follows  applies  to  the  dead 
in  general.  And  if  the  dead  in  general  are  raised 
"in  incorruption,"  "in  glory,"  "in  power,"  "a  spirit- 
ual body,"  the  legitimate  inference  is  that  they 
are  raised  to  immortality.  But  verses  53,  54,  55, 
settle  the  question  effectually. 

For  this  corruptible  must  put  on  incorruption,  and  this 
mortal  must  put  on  immortality.  So  when  this  corruptible 
shall  have  put  on  incorruption,  and  this  mortal  shall  have 


184  THE  VICTORY  OVER  DEATH. 

put  on  immortality,  then  shall  be  brought  to  pass  the  say- 
ing that  is  written.  Death  is  swallowed  up  in  victory. 
O  death,  where  is  thy  sting  ?  O  grave,  where  is  thy  victory? 

The  saying,  "Death  is  swallowed  up  in  vic- 
tory," will  receive  its  fulfillment  when  all  the  dead 
are  raised  from  the  grave.  If  it  be  claimed  that 
the  saying  applies  when  the  saints  are  raised,  who 
constitute  but  a  small  portion  of  the  race,  then, 
we  reply,  it  applied  when  Jesus  and  the  saints 
came  forth  at  the  time  of  his  resurrection.  (Matt. 
27  :52,  53.)  But  Paul  placed  it  in  the  future  from 
his  day. 

The  leading  purpose  of  the  resurrection  is, 
evidently,  the  redemption  of  the  human  family. 
We  are  not  made  accountable  for  the  sin  of  our 
foreparents,  in  the  garden,  but  for  our  individual 
wrongs.  What  was  lost  in  Adam  is  restored  in 
Christ.  "For  if,  when  we  were  enemies,  we  were 
reconciled  to  God  by  the  death  of  his  Son,  much 
more,  being  reconciled,  we  shall  be  saved  by  his 
life."  (Kom.  5:10.)  "Therefore  as  by  the 
offence  of  one  judgment  came  upon  all  men 
to  condemnation ;  even  so  by  the  righteousness  of 
one  the  free  gift  came  upon  all  men  unto  justifica- 
tion of  life."  (Verse  18.)  "But  where  sin  abound- 
ed, grace  did  much  more  abound."  (Verse  20.) 
Death  was  pronounced  upon  Adam  because  of 
transgression ;  therefore,  had  he  not  sinned,  he 
would  not  have  died  ;  and  had  he  not  died,  he 
would  have  been  immortal,  in  body  as  well  as  in 
spirit. 

If  the  vast  majority  of  the  human  family  (all 
who  are  not  true  Christians)  are  raised  in  mor- 
tality, to  be  immediately  and  literally  burned  up, 
then,  we  ask,  .what  is  the  purpose  of  bringing 
them  forth  ?  Why  not  let  them  rest  in  happy  (?) 
oblivion,  in  their  graves,  to  which  they  are,  in  a 
few  moments  of  time,  to  be  recommitted  forever? 


RAISED  TO  IMMORTALITY.  185 

This  will  not  do.  All  the  dead  are  to  be  raised  to 
conditions  of  immortality,  "but  every  man  in  Ms 
own  order."  "As  in  Adam  all  die,  even  so  in 
Christ  shall  all  be  made  ali/e."  If,  therefore, 
those  who  are  made  immortal  will  be  sure 
of  eternal  life,"  then  all  will  receive  it,  inas- 
much as  all  are  raised  to  immortality.  Fallen 
angels  and  demons  are  immortal,  but  they  are  not 
in  possession  of  eternal  life. 

Mortal-soulists  claim  that  because  the  prom- 
ise of  eternal  life  is  made  in  the  future  tense,  by 
Jesus  and  Paul,  therefore  we  do  not  receive  it,  in 
any  degree,  till  the  resurrection  ;  and  when  their 
attention  is  called  to  the  fact  that  both  Jesus  and 
John,  when  speaking  of  eternal  life,  as  applied  to 
the  saints,  use  the  present  and  past  tenses,  they 
claim  it  means  "in  prospect,"  that  is,  it  still 
means  future !  That  the  past  and  future  tenses 
are  often  used  in  prophetical  statements,  we  are 
fully  prepared  to  admit ;  but  that  the  past  and 
present  tenses  mean  altogether  future  when  used 
in  a  historical  or  doctrinal  sense  we  deny.  In  this 
latter  sense  they  are  used  by  Jesus  and  John,  and 
the  statements  mean  just  what  they  say.  Our  at- 
tention is  called  to  Eomans  4 : 17,  to  which  we 
reply :  The  consummation  of  the  work  of  making 
Abraham  the  "father  of  many  nations"  was  yet 
future  ;  though,  in  a  degree,  the  work  was  already 
begun.  If,  however,  this  is  one  of  the  passages 
wherein  the  thing  promised  is  spoken  of  as  already 
accomplished,  it  would  by  no  means  prove  that 
the  passages  which  declare  that  God's  people  have 
eternal  life  here,  only  refer  to  the  promise.  Also 
1  Corinthians  3  : 21,  22,  is  cited.  The  things  of 
which  Paul  here  speaks  were  largely  in  the  actual 
possession  of  the  saints,  when  Paul  wrote  this 
passage. 


186  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LIFE. 

The  gospel  of  Christ  is  a  gospel  of  life.  When 
we  properly  receive  it,  we  become  united  to  God, 
and  are,  then  and  there,  made  alive  in  Christ. 
This  eternal  life,  so  far  as  this  world  is  concerned, 
is  applied  to  the  immortal  spirit  in  man  ;  and,  at 
the  resurrection,  the  body  will  be  immortalized, 
and  a  fulness  of  reward  bestowed.  This  is  the 
completion  of  the  promise. 

We  do  not  believe  that  this  condition  of  life  is 
produced  by  that  which  "is  not  alive  in  itself," 
which  "is  not  mortal  nor  immortal,"  but  "by  the 
word  of  God,  which  liveth  and  abideth  forever." 
As  we  have  already  seen,  man  needs  this  imperish- 
able food  because  of  the  immortality  of  the  soul ; 
and  just  as  the  body  is  preserved,  increased  and 
strengthened  by  the  use  of  perishable  food  and 
proper  exercise,  so  the  soul  is  transformed  and 
new  life  infused  into  it,  and  this  life  perpetuated 
and  increased,  through  obedience  to  "the  word  of 
truth."  Through  the  transgression  of  our  fore- 
parents,  all  who  have  arrived  at  the  years  of  ac- 
countability, and  are  not  in  Christ,  are  dead  ;  but 
through  faith  and  obedience  we  are  made  alive. 
This  is  eternal  life,  and  it  begins  when  we  enter  in- 
to the  true  service  of  the  true  God.  The  idea  of  liv- 
ing in  obedience  to  the  word  of  life  here,  and  then 
lying  in  the  grave  for  a  few  hundreds  or  thousands 
of  years,  as  the  case  may  be,  before  we  can  receive 
any  portion  of  reward,  or  of  eternal  life,  is  as  un- 
reasonable as  it  is  unscriptural. 

It  will  be  admitted  that  "life"  and  "eternal 
life"  are  used  interchangeably  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment ;  that  death,  or  eternal  death,  is  their  oppo- 
site. Very  well.  If  eternal  life  represents  a  con- 
dition of  conscious  existence,  death,  or  eternal 
death,  represents  an  opposite  condition  of  con- 
scious existence ;  for,  please  remember,  Mr.  Shel- 
don has  already  informed  us  that  eternal  life  is  an 


LIFE  AND  DEATH.  187 

addition  to  conscious  existence  and  immortality. 
If  death,  or  eternal  death,  means  the  blotting  out 
of  life  and  consciousness,  and  this  only,  as  we  are 
told,  then  life,  or  eternal  life,  means  conscious  ex- 
istence only,  without  any  reference  to  the  enjoy- 
ment of  bliss  !  But  as  eternal  life  is  the  promised 
reward  to  the  righteous,  it  follows  that  the  phrase 
indicates  a  blissful  condition  of  consciousness. 
Neither  the  promise  of  eternal  life,  nor  the  threat 
of  eternal  death,  takes  into  consideration  what 
man  receives  by  virtue  of  his  creation,  but,  rather, 
what  he  will  receive  because  of  his  obedience  or 
disobedience  to  God.  They  are  gospel  terms 
representing  opposite  conditions  of  conscious 
existence. 

We  are  now  prepared  for  a  portion  of  the  evi- 
dence which  abounds  in  the  New  Testament. 

Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  He  that  heareth  my 
word,  and  belie veth  on  him  that  sent  me,  hath  everlasting 
life,  and  shall  not  come  into  condemation;  but  is  passed 
from  death  unto  life.— John  5:24. 

Christ  is  not  referring  to  a  future  promise, 
but  is  making  a  plain  statement  of  what  the  gos- 
pel does  for  us  here,  in  this  life ;  and  he  connects 
this  statement  with  a  future  promise  by  the  use 
of  the  con  junction  "and."  "And  shall  not  come  into 
condemnation."  Why  not  come  into  condemna- 
tion? Because  he  "is  passed  from  death  unto 
life."  Paul  teaches  precisely  the  same  doctrine  in 
Ephesiaris  2 : 1-6. 

And  you  hath  he  quickened,  who  were  dead  In  tres- 
passes and  sins.  Wherein  in  time  past  ye  walked  accord- 
ing  to  the  course  of  this  world,  according  to  .the  prince  of 
the  power  of  the  air,  the  spirit  that  now  worketh  in  the 
children  of  disobedience:  Among  whom  also  we  all  had 
our  conversation  in  times  past  in  the  lusts  of  our  flesh,  ful- 
filling the  desires  of  the  flesh  and  of  the  mind;  and  were  by 
nature,  the  children  of  wrath,  even  as  others.  But  God, 
who  is  rich  in  mercy,  for  his  great  love  wherewith  he  loved 
us,  Even  when  we  were  dead  in  sins,  hath  quickened  us 
together  with  Christ,  (by  err  are  ye  are  saved;)  And  hath 


188  LIFE  ETERNAL. 

raised  us  up  together,  and  made  us  sit  together  in  heav- 
enly  places  in  Christ  Jesus. 

Notice,  these  Ephesian  saints  were  dead  be- 
fore their  conversion  ;  but  through  faith  in  Christ 
and  obedience  to  the  gospel,  they  were  "quick- 
ened," (made  alive)  and  "raised  up"  and  made  to 
sit  together  "in  heavenly  places  in  Christ  Jesus." 
To  refer  all  this  to  the  future  is  to  do  the  most 
shocking  violence  to  the  language  employed. 
There  is  no  escape  from  the  position  that  when 
we  truly  believe  in  Christ,  we  pass  from  death 
unto  life. 

And  this  Is  the  record,  that  God  hath  given  to  us  eter- 
nal life,  and  this  life  is  in  his  Son.  He  that  hath  the  Son, 
hath  life;  and  he  that  hath  not  the  Son  of  God,  hath  not 
life.  These  things  have  I  written  unto  you  that  believe  on 
the  name  of  the  Son  of  God;  that  ye  may  know  that  ye 
have  eternal  life,  and  that  ye  may  believe  on  the  name  of 
the  Son  of  God.  And  we  know  that  the  Son  of  God  is  come, 
and  hath  given  us  an  understanding,  that  we  may  know 
him  that  is  true;  and  we  are  in  him  that  is  true,  even  in  his 
Son  Jesus  Christ.  This  is  the  true  God,  and  eternal  life.— J 
John  5:  11, 12, 13,  20. 

Eternal  life  is  in  Christ.  "He  that  hath  the 
Son  hath  life."  When  do  we  come  into  possession 
of  Christ  ?  At  the  resurrection,  or  before  ?  An- 
swer. We  come  into  possession  of  Christ  when 
we  receive  him ;  and  we  receive  him  when  we  ac- 
cept the  message  of  truth  as  delivered  by  his  ser- 
vants. "He  that  receiveth  you  receiveth  me,  and 
he  that  receiveth  me  receiveth  him  that  sent  me." 
(Matt.  10:40.)  John  13 : 20  is  still  more  compre- 
hensive, as  the  wording  includes — not  only  the 
apostles,  but— every  authorized  minister  of  Christ. 
"He  that  receiveth  whomsoever  I  send,  receiveth 
me,  and  he  that  receiveth  me  receiveth  him  that 
sent  me."  John  taught  the  same  doctrine  as 
plainly  as  words  can  express  it,  in  his  Second  Epis- 
tle and  ninth  verse : 

Whosoever  transgresseth,  and  abideth  not  in  the  doc- 
trine of  Christ.  hath  not  God.  He  that  abideth  in  the 
doctrine  of  Christ,  he  hath  both  the  Father  and  the  Son. 


WHEN  DOES  LIFE  BEGIN  ?  1 89 

This  settles  the  question.  Those  who  prop- 
erly received  the  gospel  received  Christ  and  the 
Father ;  and  through  the  pure  and  all  powerful 
Spirit,  which  God  gives  "to  them  that  obey  him," 
eternal  life  is  infused  into  the  soul. 

And  this  is  the  will  of  him  that  sent  me,  that  every  one 
which  seeth  the  Son,  and  believeth  on  him,  may  have  ever- 
lasting life:  and  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last  day.  Whoso 
eateth  my  flesh,  and  drinketh  my  blood,  hath  eternal  life; 
and  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last  day.— John  6:40,  54. 

These  passages,  taken  together,  teach  that 
the  children  of  Christ  receive  eternal  life  first, 
and  afterwards  are  brought  forth  in  the  resurrec- 
tion. The  degree  of  life  received  here  will  deter- 
mine their  condition  in  the  resurrection  state. 
"But  if  the  Spirit  of  him  that  raised  up  Christ 
from  the  dead  dwell  in  you,  he  that  raised  up  Christ 
from  the  dead  shall  also  quicken  your  mortal  bod- 
ies by  his  Spirit  that  dwelleth  in  you."  Or,  mar- 
ginal translation,  "because  of  his  Spirit  that 
dwelleth  in  you."  (Bom.  8 : 11.) 

Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  If  a  man  keep  my  say- 
ing, he  shall  never  see  death.— John  8:51. 

Jesus  said  unto  her,  I  am  the  resurrection  and  the  life; 
he  that  believeth  in  me,  though  he  were  dead,  yet  shall  he 
live:  And  whosoever  liveth,  and  believeth  In  me,  shall 
never  die.  Belie  vest  thou  this.— John  11:25,  26  ? 

When  we  teach  this  doctrine,  Adventists  are 
ready  and  fond  of  accusing  us  of  joining  in  with 
Satan  in  the  sentiment,  "Thou  shalt  not  surely 
die."  Even  leading  authors,  like  Miles  Grant, 
have  lent  their  influence  to  this  practice,  and  all 
the  ministers  of  lesser  note  pursue  the  same  pol- 
icy, when  engaged  in  controversy,  and  even  in 
their  preaching.  Now  the  practice  is  more  ingen- 
ious than  it  is  wise  or  commendable.  We  do  not 
deny  that  the  impenitent,  or  wicked,  will  die  "the 
second  death ;"  but  are  we  compelled  to  accept 
Adventist  interpretation,  or  be  accused  of  making 


190  TRUE  BELIEVERS  NEVER  DIE. 

league  with  the  Devil !  But  we  are  in  good  com- 
pany, as  Jesus  taught  the  same  things.  "If  a  man 
keep  my  saying,  he  shall  never  see  death."  "And 
whosoever  liveth  and  believeth  in  me  shall  never 
die.  Believest  thou  this?"  Do  mortal-soulists 
believe  it?  But,  say  they,  Jesus  was  speaking  to 
Martha  of  the  resurrection.  Whoever  believes  in 
Christ  and  lives  in  the  resurrection,  shall  not  "die 
any  more."  Was  Jesus  speaking  of  the  resurrec- 
tion when  he  said  to  the  Jews,  "If  a  man  keep 
my  saying,  he  shall  never  see  death  ?"  The  record 
does  not  show  it ;  and  the  last  quotation  is  har- 
monious with  the  first.  It  is  true  that  the  resur- 
rection was  the  subject  under  discussion  by  Jesus 
and  Martha.  Martha  believed  that  her  brother 
would  come  forth  in  the  resurrection,  and  she 
doubtless  believed  that  when  he  did,  he  would 
live  forever ;  but  Jesus  comforts  her  by  imparting 
additional  and  precious  truth;  in  order  that  she 
might  believe  that  he  was  able  to  raise  him  up  to 
life  even  then ;  and  that  she  might  have  a  "larger 
hope"  concerning  those  who  die  in  Christ. 

1.  "I  am  the  resurrection,  and  the  life :    he 
that  believeth  in  me,  though  he  were  dead,  yet 
shall  he  live." 

2.  "And  whosoever  liveth  and  believeth  in  me 
shall  never  die.    Believest  thou  this?" 

The  latter  part  of  verse  25  does  not  refer  to  the 
resurrection,  but  to  those  who  are  dead  in  sin, 
and,  believing  in  Christ,  receive  eternal  life  before 
the  resurrection.  That  it  does  not  refer  to  the 
resurrection  is  evident  from  two  reasons : 

1.  The  wicked  will  have  part  in  the  resurrec- 
tion, as  well  as  believers  in  Christ. 

2.  The  resurrection  will  not  depend  upon  our 
faith  in  Christ,  but  is  universal  and  unconditional. 
According  to  this  language,  he  who  is  made  alive 
must,  at  that  time,  believe  in  Christ.     So  if  it  ap- 


LIFE  ETERNAL  IN  REALITY.  19J 

plies  to  those  who  have  died  the  natural  death, 
they  are  proved  to  be  conscious. 

Verse  26  is  equally  clear.  "And  whosoever 
liveth  and  believeth  in  me  shall  never  die."  These 
words  do  not  refer  to  life  in  the  resurrection,  but, 
evidently,  to  all  who  believe  in  Christ  in  this  life. 
We  are  not  at  liberty  to  suppose  that  Martha 
needed  to  be  told  that  whosoever  lives  in  the  resur- 
rection of  the  just  shall  never  die,  and  for  two  reas- 
ons :  1  .  The  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  to  immor- 
tality was  current  among  the  Jews.  All  but  a 
few  unpopular  Sadducees  accepted  it.  2.  Martha 
was  not  a  Sadducee,  but  a  firm  believer  in  the  res- 
urrection. She  did  not  need  to  be  told  that  the 
dead  would  be  raised  to  immortality,  for  that  she 
already  believed;  but,  in  the  hour  of  trial  she 
needed  that  which  would  come  still  nearer  to  her 
troubled  soul,  —  hence  the  declaration  of  that 
grand  truth  which  forms  the  basis  of  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  just,  viz.,  belief  in  Christ  and  actual 
possession  of  eternal  life.  "Whosoever  liveth  and 
believeth  in  me  shall  never  die."  She  believed 
that  her  brother  would  "rise  again  in  the  resur- 
rection at  the  last  day,"  but  Jesus  tells  her  some- 
thing more,  and  then  adds:  "Believest  thou 


Now  in  the  light  of  all  these  testimonies,  we 
are  gravely  told  that  we  have  eternal  life  only  in 
prospect  !  It  would  be  in  order  now  for  our  oppo- 
nents to  correct  some  other  traditional  teaching 
and  inform  us  that  remission  of  sin  and  the  gift 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  are  had  in  prospect,  by  the 
Saints  ;  that  when  Jesus  promised  them  he  simply 
called  "things  which  be  not  as  though  they  were.*1 
(Rom.  4:17.) 

We  close  this  chapter  with  a  grand  test  fur- 
nished by  John  himself,  which  should  put  the 
matter  at  rest  forever. 


132  A  CONCLUDING  TEST. 

We  know  that  we  have  passed  from  death  unto  life 
because  we  love  the  brethren.  He  that  loveth  not  his 
brother  abideth  in  death.  Whosoever  hateth  his  brother, 
is  a  murderer:  and  ye  know  that  no  murderer  hath  eter- 
nal life  abiding  in  him.— 1  John  3:14, 15. 

This  is  a  test  of  great  practical  worth  to  the 
people  of  God.  It  is  possible  for  them  to  obey  the 
gospel  in  form  and  letter  and  yet  fail  to  secure  a 
proper  standing  before  God.  That  is,  we  may 
obey  the  gospel  all  right  in  form,  and  thus  enter 
into  the  church  of  God ;  and  yet,  failing  to  obey 
intelligently  and  "from  the  heart,"  we  remain  the 
children  of  the  world,  "the  children  of  wrath." 
How  how  shall  we  know  that  the  great  change 
has  been  wrought,  and  we  are  indeed  the  children  of 
God  ?  "God  is  love."  If  we  are  his,  He  will  give 
us  "of  his  Spirit."  When  his  Spirit  is  in  us,  we 
will  not  only  love  him,  but  all  his  children.  This 
love  is  the  evidence  that  "we  have  passed  from 
death  unto  life."  "He  that  loveth  not  his  brother 
abideth  in  death."  "Whosoever  hateth  his  brother 
is  a  murderer :  and  ye  know  that  no  murderer 
hath  eternal  life  abiding  in  him."  When  we  truly 
love  "the  brethren,"  "we  know  that  we  have  passed 
from  death  unto  life." 

It  would  hardly  do  to  say  that  we  know  that 
we  have  received  the  promise  of  eternal  life,  be- 
cause we  love  the  brethren  !  Much  less  would  it 
do  for  us  to  depend  upon  the  love  we  now  have  for 
the  brethren  as  proper  evidence  that  we  shall,  in 
the  resurrection,  "pass  from  death  unto  life!" 
What  evidence  is  present  love  that  we  shall  re- 
main faithful  till  death  ? 

Thus  we  see  that  eternal  life  begins  here,  and 
that  it  continues  to  increase,  so  long  as  we  are 
faithful  to  God,  until  the  resurrection,  when  we 
shall  receive  a  fulness.  There  is  no  possible  thing 
or  power,  not  even  death,  that  can  separate  us 
from  this  desirable  condition,  so  long  as  \ve  abide 


SECOND  DEATH.  193 

in   "the  doctrine  of  Christ."     (Rom.  8 : 38,  39;  2 
John  9.) 

From  the  Bible  testimony  contained  in  this 
chapter,  on  the  resurrection  and  eternal  life,  but 
one  proper  conclusion  can  be  formed  :  The  spirit, 
or  soul,  is  immortal,  and  lives  in  a  conscious  state 
between  death  and  the  resurrection. 


CHAPTER  III. 

TTTE  SECOND  DEATH,  OR  FUTURE  PUNISHMENT-TS 
THE  "LAKE  OF  FIRE"  LITERAL ?-WILL  ALL  WHO 
ARE  NOT  CHRISTIANS  LOSE  THEIR  CONSCIOUS 
EXISTENCE  AT  THE  JUDGMENT? 

Our  opponents  assume,  do  not  prove,  that 
what  we  call  natural  death  is  a  cessation  of  con- 
scious being  This,  they  affirm,  is  the  first  death ; 
and  as  the  "second  death"  (the  penalty  for  sin)  is 
like  unto  the  first,  it  will  leave  all  upon  whom 
it  has  claim  in  a  state  of  eternal  oblivion  ! 

We  reply  that  we  have  already  shown  that 
death  is  not  an  end  to  conscious  existence,  but, 
rather,  the  separation  of  body  and  spirit,  with  the 
departure  to  God  of  the  thinking,  active,  con- 
scious part  of  man.  Is  it  not  a  little  strange  that 
men  who  claim  plain  Bible  support  for  their 
views,  should  find  it  necessary  to  assume,  so  fre- 
quently and  dogmatically,  that  death  means  an 
entire  absence  of  conscious  being  ?  "Death,"  they 
say,  "means  death.11  Yes,  certainly,  but  what  does 
"death"  mean  ?  We  have  shown  what  it  means  in 
the  light  of  Bible  teaching. 

Next,  they  assume,  but  do  not  prove,  that  the 
first  death,  which  is  like  the  second,  is  the  one 
which  occurs  at  the  end  of  man's  natural  life,  that 
is,  the  death  of  the  body.  This  we  deny.  If,  as 
we  are  told,  the  second  death  is  like  the  first,  then 


194  VARIOUS  TERMS  FOR  PUNISHMENT. 

the  first  is  like  the  second ;  and  if  the  second  is 
not  what  we  term  natural  death,  as  we  claim, 
then  the  first  is  not  natural  death. 

The  New  Testament,  in  describing  the  pun- 
ishment of  the  wicked,  uses  such  terms  and 
phrases  as  these :  "Death,"  "the  second  death," 
"hell,"  "hell  fire,"  "cast  into  prison,"  "lake  of 
fire,"  "outer  darkness,"  etc.  Horn.  6:23:  "For 
the  wages  of  sin  is  death ;  but  the  gift  of  God  is 
eternal  life  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord."  Kev. 
20:14,  15  :  "And  death  and  hell  were  cast  into  the 
lake  of  fire.  This  is  the  second  death.  And  who- 
soever was  not  found  written  in  the  book  of  life 
was  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire."  Matt.  5  : 30  :  "For 
it  is  profitable  for  thee  that  one  of  thy  members 
should  perish,  and  not  that  thy  whole  body  should 
be  cast  into  hell."  Matt.  5  : 20 :  "But  whosoever 
shall  say,  Thou  fool,  shall  be  in  danger  of  hell 
fire."  Matt.  5 : 25,  26  :  "Agree  with  thine  adver- 
sary quickly,  whilst  thou  art  in  the  way  with  him; 
lest  at  any  time  the  adversary  deliver  thee  to  the 
judge,  and  the  judge  deliver  thee  to  the  officer, 
and  thou  be  cast  into  prison.  Verily  I  say  unto 
thee,  Thou  shalt  by  no  means  come  out  thence, 
till  thou  hast  paid  the  utter  most  farthing."  Matt. 
8  : 12  :  "But  the  children  of  the  kingdom  shall  be 
cast  out  into  outer  darkness ;  there  shall  be  weep- 
ing and  gnashing  of  teeth."  Matt.  22 : 13  :  "Then 
said  the  king  to  the  servants,  Bind  him  hand  and 
foot,  and  take  him  away,  and  cast  him  into  outer 
darkness:  there  shall  be  weeping  and  gnashing  of 
teeth."  Matt.  25  : 30  :  "And  cast  ye  the  unprofit- 
able servant  into  outer  darkness :  there  shall  be 
weeping  and  gnashing  of  teeth." 

When  we  consider  these  expressions  as  a 
whole,  and  the  connections  in  which  they  are 
used,  we  are  forced  to  the  conclusion  that  they  are 
figurative  descriptions  of  the  intensity  and  exquis- 


FIGURATIVE  DESCRIPTIONS.  195 

iteness  of  the  punishment  which  shall  be  meted 
out  to  the  finally  impenitent.  In  the  very  nature 
of  the  case,  we  can  know  but  little  of  the  charac- 
ter of  future  punishment,  hence  the  necessity  of 
figurative  terms  and  expressions  in  describing  it. 
As  Canon  Farrar  truly  says  with  reference  to  an- 
other matter  concerning  the  future  state,  "All 
details,  as  in  the  entire  eschatology  of  Scripture, 
are  left  dim  and  indefinite."  But  it  only  requires 
a  fairly  comprehensive  view  to  exclude  entirely  the 
idea  of  literal  fire. 

When  we  take  some  of  these  expressions  and 
make  them  literal,  while  we  hold  others  to  be 
highly  figurative,  it  looks  more  like  we  were  try- 
ing to  support  some  chosen  theory  than  to  learn 
what  the  Bible  really  teaches.  If  the  "lake  of 
fire"  is  literal,  so  is  the  "outer  darkness;"  and 
then,  we  ask,  how  can  there  be  literal  darkness  at 
the  same  place  and  at  the  same  time  that  there 
are  literal  flames  of  fire  ? 

We  may  be  told,  however,  that  the  fire  repre- 
sents the  means  by  which  they  will  be  destroyed, 
while  the  darkness  represents  their  unconscious 
and  eternal  oblivion  in  the  grave.  But  this  will 
not  do.  It  is  a  careless  and  unsafe  way  of  inter- 
preting the  word.  The  Bible  does  not  state  that 
the  bodies  of  dead  men  are  thrown  into  this  "outer 
darkness,"  but  living,  conscious  beings.  More  than 
this,  they  are  conscious  in  the  darkness,  for  as  a 
result  of  being  cast  therein  Jesus  said,  "There 
shall  be  weeping  and  gnashing  of  teeth."  Just  as 
the  impenitent  wicked  are  "cast  into  the  lake  of 
fire,"  which  "is  the  second  death,"  so  are  they 
"cast  into  outer  darkness,"  where  "there  shall  be 
weeping  and  gnashing  of  teeth."  There  is  no  es- 
cape from  the  positions  that  the  darkness  and  fire 
represent  the  condition  into  which  the  wicked  will 
go  immediately  after  the  judgment ;  that  this  con- 


196  HELL— GEHENNA. 

dition  is  the  * 'second  death;"  and  that  in  this 
second  death,  the  wicked  are  conscious.  Ic  is 
clearly  a  state  of  banishment  from  God  with  a  deep 
consciousness  of  guilt  and  shame.  This  is  hell 
(gehenna)  indeed! 

It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  Adventist 
authors  admit  that  when  hell  is  translated  from 
gehenna,  it  refers  to  the  future  punishment  of  the 
wicked;  but  they  fail  to  notice  that  this  word 
gehenna  (hell)  was  used  metaphorically  by  the 
Savior. 

"To  the  southeast  of  Jerusalem  was  a  deep 
and  fertile  valley  called  the  vale  of  Hinnom,  or,  in 
Greek,  Gehenna.  In  a  particular  portion  of  this 
valley,  known  as  Tophet,  the  idolatrous  Jews 
burned  their  children  in  sacrifice  to  Moloch.  In 
the  reformation  instituted  by  Josiah,  this  valley 
was  polluted,  and  therefore,  became  the  place  for 
casting  out  and  burning  offal  and  the  corpses  of 
criminals.  Hence  the  use  of  the  phrase,  'fire  of 
Gehenna,'  translated  'hell  fire,'  to  indicate  the 
place  of  future  punishment.  Thence  it  has  passed 
into  the  religious  literature  of  Christendom." — 
Abbott,  in  "DICTIONARY  OF  RELIGIOUS  KNOWL- 
EDGE," Art.,  "Hell." 

Mr.  Grant  says,  in  "WHAT  IS  MAN,"  p.  23, 
that  "Had  the  word  gehenna  been  fully  translated, 
it  would  have  been  rendered,  'The  fire  of  the  val- 
ley of  Hinnom.' " 

These  statements  clearly  show  that  gehennat  or 
"hell  fire,"  as  used  in  the  New  Testament,  is  a 
metaphor;  and  we  have  no  more  right  to  affirm 
that  the  "lake  of  fire,"  or  "hell  fire,"  into  which 
the  wicked  will  be  cast,  is  literal  fire,  than  we 
have  to  affirm  that  God  is  a  literal'  rock  because  he 
is  repeatedly  called  a  rock  by  the  Psalmist  and 
others.  (Pa.  18:  31;  78:  35;  Deut.  32:  31.) 


GRANT  ON  GEHENNA.  197 

Mr.  Grant,  and  those  who  believe  as  he  does 
concerning  the  punishment  of  the  wicked,  will 
hardly  claim  that  the  wicked  will  be  cast  into  the 
veritable  gehenna,  south-east  of  Jerusalem ;  yet 
this  is  precisely  what  they  are  compelled  to  believe 
if  they  accept  it  for  anything  more  than  a  meta- 
phor. But,  says  Mr.  Grant,  "When  the  Savior 
was  speaking  to  the  Jews  on  the  subject  of  the 
future  punishment  of  the  wicked,  he  illustrates 
their  destruction  by  referring  to  the  valley  of 
Hinom,  where  they  burnt  up  their  filthy  matter. 
No  one  ever  thought  of  casting  a  thing  there  for 
preservation.  And  in  order  to  make  the  point 
strong  indeed,  and  show  that  no  portion  of  the 
wicked  man  will  be  preserved,  the  Savior  says, 
'the  fire  shall  not  be  quenched.'  Or,  as  it  is  said 
in  Matt.  3 : 12,  'He  will  burn  up  the  chaff  (the 
wicked)  with  unquenchable  fire.'  If  the  fire  could 
be  quenched,  then  the  chaff  would  not  be  'burnt 
up,'  for  we  never  speak  of  quenching  a  fire,  unless 
we  intend  to  prevent  some  part  of  the  burning 
substance  from  being  wholly  consumed.  What- 
ever is  cast  into  an  unquenchable  fire  must  of 
necessity  be  burnt  up  ;  unless  it  be  something  up- 
on which  the  fire  has  no  effect,  in  which  case  no 
suffering  could  be  produced."  WHAT  is  MAN?" 
pp.  22,  23. 

Yes,  he  "illustrates  their  destruction"  by  the 
use  of  a  bold  metaphor,  just  as  he  illustrates  their 
condition  by  saying  they  "shall  be  cast  out  into 
outer  darkness :  there  shall  be  weeping  and  gnash- 
ing of  teeth."  He  illustrates  the  condition  of  the 
righteous  in  the  intermediate  state  by  telling  us 
of  the  joys  and  peace  of  Lazarus  in  "Abraham's 
bosom ;"  but  as  we  are  not  to  suppose  that  the 
righteous  go  into  the  literal  bosom  of  Abraham,  at 
death,  neither  are  we  to  suppose  that  the  wicked, 
at  the  judgment,  will  be  cast  into  a  literal  lake  of 


19S  UNQUENCHABLE  FIRE. 

literal  fire.  Having-  proved  that  the  fire  is  not 
literal,  Mr.  Grant's  remarks  fall  flatly  and  harm- 
lessly upon  the  ear. 

1  'No  one,"  says  Mr.  Grant,  "ever  thought  of 
casting  a  thing  there  for  preservation."  Why  this 
remark?  What  did  they  cast  into  the  vale  of 
Hinnom?  "In  the  reformation  instituted  by  Josiah, 
this  valley  was  polluted,  and,  therefore,  became 
the  place  of  casting  out  and  burning  offal  and 
the  corpses  of  criminals."  But  those  who  are 
cast  into  "hell  fire,"  "the  lake  of  fire,"  or  "outer 
darkness."  are  living,  conscious  men  and  women. 
And,  according  to  Mr.  Grant's  theory,  all  who  are 
not  true  Christians,  without  regard  to  what  their 
opportunities  may  have  been  for  receiving  the 
gospel,  or  what  degree  of  good  they  may  have  done 
in  this  life,  are  doomed  to  eternal  oblivion  in  the 
fi  res  of  gehennal 

Mr.  Grant  thinks  because  the  fire  is  unquencha- 
ble that  no  part  of  the  wicked  man  will  be  pre- 
served. But  we  have  shown  that  all  men  are 
possessed  of  immortality,  and  that,  in  the  resur- 
rection, all  will  come  forth  with  immortal  bodies. 
It  is  the  practice  of  wickedness  that  constitutes 
wicked  people;  and  as  wickedness  is  an  abnormal 
condition,  it  must  necessarily  come  to  an  end. 
It  is  through  the  instrumentality  and  works  of 
the  Devil  that  all  abnormal  conditions  obtain; 
and  just  to  the  extent  that  they  abide,  the  Devil 
is  victorious;  to  the  extent  that  they  are  over- 
come, God  is  victorious.  The  idea  that  all  who  are 
not  Christians  are  wholly  wicked,  is  a  mistake; 
and  the  idea  that  God  will  destroy  that  which  is 
good,  is  another  mistake.  Hence  we  read,  "Let 
the  wickedness  of  the  wicked  come  to  an  end." 
(Psalr^s  7:  9.)  As  the  wicked,  they  will  be  de- 
stroyed, both  "root  and  branch;"  but  as  individu- 
als, possessed  of  consciousness,  they  will  remain. 


FUTURE  PUNISHMENT.  199 

The  unquenchable  flre  effectually  does  its  work, 
and  that  too,  without  giving  the  victory  to  the 
Devil. 

Mr.  Grant,  speaking  of  the  second  death, 
makes  the  following  statements  : 

Observe,  the  wages  of  sin  is  not  dying,  but  death,  which 
is  the  end  of  dying.  A  person  is  not  dead  till  the  act  of 
dying  is  completed:  and  when  dead,  they  "know  not  any- 
thing," and  consequently  suffer  nothing, 

We  learn  from  Rev.  20:14,  that  the  death  penalty  for 
sin  "is  the  second  death."  If  there  is  a  second  there  must 
be  a  first  death,  and  the  second  must  be  like  the  first;  con- 
sequently the  second  must  likewise  be  a  cessation  of  con- 
scious existence."— "WHAT  is  MAN,"  pp.  24,  25. 

According  to  the  above,  death  ("a  cessation  of 
conscious  being")  is  the  extreme  penalty  for  sin.  In 
the  last  paragraph  of  page  25  Mr.  Grant  says:  ' '  'The 
wages  of  sin  is  death,'  not  suffering;  and  the  pun- 
ishment does  not  begin  till  they  are  dead."  Why 
then,  did  the  Savior  say,  "But  whoso  shall  offend 
one  of  these  little  ones  which  believe  in  me,  it 
were  better  for  him  that  a  mill  stone  were  hanged 
about  his  neck,  and  that  he  were  drowned  in  the 
depth  of  the  sea?"  (Matt.  18:6.)  This  verse 
plainly  teaches  that  it  is  better  to  suffer  death 
than  to  incur  the  penalty  for  sinning  against  "one 
of  these  little  ones  which  believe  in"  Christ ;  thus 
proving  by  the  plainest  implication,  that  the  fu- 
ture punishment  of  the  wicked  is  greater  than 
literal  death.  The  antithetical  text  to  the  above 
scripture  is  found  in  Matt.  10 : 42 :  "And  whoso- 
ever shall  give  to  drink  unto  one  of  these  little 
ones  a  cup  of  cold  water  only  in  the  name  of  a  dis- 
ciple, verily  I  say  unto  you  he  shall  in  no  wise 
lose  his  reward." 

Paul  too  teaches  that  future  punishment  is 
more  than  literal  death. 

He  that  despised  Moses'  law,  died  without  mercy  under 
two  or  three  witnesses:  Of  how  much  sorer  punishment, 
suppose  ye,  shall  he  be  thought  worthy,  who  hath  trodden 
under  foot  the  Son  of  God,  and  hath  counted  the  blood  of 
the  covenant,  wherewith  he  was  sanctified,  an  unholy 


200  A  SORER  PUNISHMENT. 

thing,  and  hath  done  despite  unto  the  Spirit  of  grace?— 
Heb.  10:28,  29. 

The  stated  fact  that  those  who  reject  the  gos- 
pel, knowingly,  will  suffer  a  "much  sorer  punish- 
ment" (more  grievous  and  painful)  than  those  who 
"despised  Moses'  law"  and  "died  without  mercy," 
should  forever  settle  the  question.  These  scrip- 
tures prove  clearly  that  future  punishment,  or 
"the  second  death,"  is  a  condition  of  conscious 
suffering ;  and  Mr.  Grant's  fanciful  idea  of  pun- 
ishment without  pain  or  consciousness,  which  he 
seems  to  think  so  illustrative  of  God's  love  and 
mercy,  is  excluded. 

The  very  expressions  used  in  describing  future 
punishment,  clearly  indicate  that  it  is  a  state  of 
banishment  from  the  light  and  glory  of  God.  "And 
take  him  away,  and  cast  him  into  outer  darkness ; 
there  shall  be  weeping  and  gnashing  of  teeth." 
This  sentiment,  with  almost  its  exact  language, 
is  found  in  three  different  passages,  all  descrip- 
tive of  future  punishment,  as  given  by  the  Savior. 

And  death  and  hell  were  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire.  This 
is  the  second  death.— Rev.  20:14. 

And  the  Devil  that  deceived  them  was  cast  into  the 
lake  of  fire  and  brimstone,  where  the  beast  and  the  false 
prophet  are.  and  shall  be  tormented  day  and  night  forever 
and  ever.— Rev.  20:10. 

The  Devil  stands  as  the  representative  head 
of  all  devils  or  demons ;  the  false  prophet  stands 
as  the  representative  head  of  that  class  of  individ- 
uals denominated  "the  wicked."  The  beast  like- 
wise represents  a  wicked  class  of  people.  Will  all 
these,  including  the  Devil  and  his  angels,  be  un- 
conscious while  they  are  being  "tormented  day 
and  night  forever  and  ever  ?  "  That  "forever"  is 
often  used  in  a  limited  sense,  we  are  prepared  to 
admit ;  but  that  the  words,  "and  shall  be  tormented 
day  and  night  forever  and  ever,"  refer  to  a  few  mo- 
ments of  time  required  to  burn  up  the  wicked,  or 
to  the  solitude  of  the  unconscious  dead,  we  deny. 


DEATH— BANISHMENT.  201 

Then  shall  he  say  also  to  them  on  the  left  hand,  Depart 
from  me,  ye  cursed,  into  everlasting  fire,  prepared  for  the 
devil  and  his  angels.— Matt.  25:41. 

And  these  shall  go  away  into  everlasting  punishment: 
but  the  righteous  into  life  eternal.— Matt.  25:46. 

We  learn  from  these  passages,  (1)  that  the 
second  death  is  a  state  of  banishment  and  con- 
scious torment :  and  (2)  that  the  punishment  of 
the  wicked  is  associated  with  the  punishment  of 
devils.  Now  devils  are  spirit  beings,  or  fallen 
angels,  and  it  is  not  likely  that  they  lose  their 
conscious  existence  in  the  secound  death.  We 
have  already  learned  from  Peter  and  Jude  that 
"God  spared  not  the  angels  that  sinned,  but  cast 
them  down  to  hell,  and  delivered  them  in  chains 
of  darkness  to  be  reserved  unto  judgment." — 2 
Peter  2: 4. 

And  the  angels  which  kept  not  their  first  estate,  but 
left  their  own  habitation,  he  hath  reserved  in  everlasting 
chains,  under  darkness  unto  the  judgment  of  the  great 
day.— Jude  6. 

Peter  draws  a  close  analogy  between  the  des- 
tiny of  fallen  angels  and  that  of  wicked  people. 
In  the  9th  verse  of  the  chapter  referred  to  above, 
(Revised  Version)  he  says  : 

The  Lord  knoweth  how  to  deliver  the  godly  out  of 
temptation,  and  to  keep  the  unrighteous  under  punish- 
ment unto  the  day  of  judgment. 

The  angels  who  sinned  lost  their  "first  es- 
tate," hence  their  punishment  in  hell  (tartarus)  is, 
to  them,  the  second  or  intermediate  state.  In 
like  manner  the  unrighteous  will  be  kept  "under 
punishment"  till  the  day  of  judgment,  when  the 
judge  shall  say,  "Depart  from  me,  ye  that  work 
iniquity."  (Matt.  7:23.) 

We  are  now  prepared  to  consider,  briefly,  the 
first  death.  When  the  first  pair  were  placed  in 
the  garden  of  Eden,  they  were  permitted  to  choose 
for  themselves.  It  was  wisdom  in  the  Divine  Be- 
ing to  grant  this  agency  to  man. 


202  THOUSAND  YEAR  DAY. 

And  the  Lord  God  commanded  the  man,  saying,  Of 
every  tree  of  the  garden  thou  mayest  freely  eat:  but  of  the 
tree  of  knowledge  of  good  and  evil,  thou  shalt  not  eat  of  it; 
for  in  the  day  that  thou  eatest  thereof  thou  shalt  surely 
die.-Gen.  2:16.  17. 

This  is  the  first  revelation  of  God  to  man  con- 
cerning death.  What  was  to  produce  this  death  ? 
Eating  of  the  forbidden  fruit,  or  the  transgress- 
ion of  God's  laws.  When  was  this  death  to  ob- 
tain ?  At  the  very  time  the  transgression  took 
place.  "For  in  the  day  that  thou  eatest  thereof 
thou  shalt  surely  die."  But  we  are  referred  to  the 
marginal  translation  which  reads,  "dying  thou 
shalt  die."  This  does  not  change  the  matter  in 
the  least,  for  "dying  thou  shalt  die"  was  to  be  ac- 
complished on  the  "rfaz/"  of  their  transgression. 
Next  we  are  referred  to  Peter's  language : 

But,  beloved,  be  not  ignorant  of  this  one  thing,  that 
one  day  is  with  the  Lord  as  a  thousand  years,  and  a  thous- 
and years  as  one  day."— 2  Peter  3:8. 

We  reply  that  Peter  does  not  intimate  that 
the  Lord  has  a  system  of  time  peculiar  to  himself, 
but,  rather,  that  time  is  reckoned  unto  man  only. 
With  God,  it  is  one  vast  eternity ;  and  because  a 
certain  event  does  not  transpire  as  soon  as  we  look 
for  it,  it  is  no  evidence  that  God  has  forgotten  his 
work,  or  that  he  is  "slack  concerning  his  promise." 
If  the  Lord  has  one  system  of  time  and  we  an- 
other, how  are  we  to  understand  which  system  is 
meant,  unless  it  is  indicated  in  the  text?  In  the 
text  under  consideration  the  word  "day"  comes 
from  the  Hebrew  yom ;  and  there  is  nothing  either 
in  the  original  word  or  the  context  to  show  that 
it  has  a  different  meaning  from  that  indicated  by 
the  same  word  in  the  following  texts,  selected 
from  a  host  of  others  of  similar  import. 

And  God  made  two  great  lights;  the  greater  light  tc 
rule  the  day.  .  .  .  And  to  rule  over  the  day  and  over  the 
night,  and  to  divide  the  light  from  the  darkness.— (Jen.  1: 
16,  18. 


THE  DAY  OF  GENESIS.  203 

Behold  thou  hast  driven  me  out  this  day  from  the  face 
of  the  earth.— Gen.  4:14. 

In  the  selfsame  day  entered  Noah,  etc.— Gen.  7:13. 

And  it  came  to  pass  the  same  day,  that  Isaac's  servants 
came,  and  told  concerning  the  well  which  they  had  digged. 
—Gen.  26:32. 

"For  in  the  day  that  thou  eatest  thereof  thou 
shalt  surely  die,"  refers  to  a  particular  and  speci- 
fied time  and  not  to  the  whole  life-time  of  Adam 
from  the  day  of  his  transgression  till  the  time 
when  his  body  should  return  to  the  dust.  God 
not  only  said  they  should  die,  but  they  were  to  die 
in  the  day  of  their  transgression.  Satan  said, 
"Ye  shall  not  surely  die."  (Gen.  3:4.)  We  believe 
that  God  told  the  truth,  in  full,  and  that  Adam 
died  on  the  same  day  in  which  he  partook  of  the 
forbidden  fruit. 

Mr.  Grant  says,  "If  there  is  a  second,  there 
must  be  a  first  death,  and  the  second  must  be  like 
the  first."  Granted.  Then  the  first  must  be  like  the 
second  ;  and  as  the  second  is  proved  to  be  a  state 
of  banishment  from  the  presence  of  God  into  one 
of  darkness  where  the  wicked  are  conscious  of  act- 
ual torment,  called  "hell  fire,"  therefore,  the  first 
death  must  be  a  state  of  banishment  from  the 
presence  and  glory  of  God  into  one  of  darkness  and 
sin.  This  darkness  and  sin,  in  Adam,  is  called 
death.  Now  because  our  foreparents  listened 
to  the  voice  of  Satan,  and  obeyed  his  cunning 
but  wicked  invitation  to  break  the  command- 
ment of  God,  they  became  carnal  and  sinful, 
and  this  carnal  and  fallen  condition  is  called 
death. 

For  to  be  carnally  minded  is  death;  but  to  be  spiritu- 
ally minded  is  life  and  peace.  Because  the  carnal  mind  is 
enmity  against  God:  for  it  is  not  subject  to  the  law  of  God, 
neither  indeed  can  be.— Rom.  8:6,  7. 

And  you  hath  he  quickened,  who  were  dead  in  tres- 
passes and  sins.— Eph.  2:1. 

Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  he  that  heareth  my  wordf 
and  believeth  on  him  that  sent  me,  hath  everlasting  life, 


204  THE  FIRST  DEATH. 

and  shall  not  come  into  condemnation:  but  is  passed  from 
death  unto  life.— John  5:24. 

We  know  that  we  have  passed  from  death  unto  life, 
because  we  love  the  brethren. — 1  John  3:14. 

God  said,  "Thou  shalt  surely  die ;"  and  we  find 
all  accountable  beings,  who  are  not  in  Christ,  dead. 
This  establishes  our  point  beyond  reasonable  con- 
tradiction. 

In  the  third  chapter  of  Genesis,  we  read  of  the 
temptation  and  fall  of  man,  and  his  consequent 
banishment  from  the  beautiful  garden.  Verses 
23  and  24  read  as  follows  : 

Therefore  the  Lord  God  sent  him  forth  from  the  gar- 
den of  Eden,  to  till  the  ground  from  whence  he  was  taken. 
So  he  drove  out  the  man;  and  he  placed  at  the  east  of  the 
garden  of  Eden  Cherubims,  nnd  a  flaming  sword  which 
turned  every  way,  to  keep  the  way  of  the  tree  of  life. 

Here  is  the  first  death ;  and  as  Mr.  Grant  says 
the  second  must  be  like  the  first,  and  it  will 
occur  when  the  judge  shall  say,  "Depart  from  me, 
ye  that  work  iniquity."  (Matt.  7:23.)  Thus  we 
see  that  the  first  death  was  banishment  from  the 
presence  of  the  Lord,  and  so  is  the  second.  "And 
these  [the  wicked]  shall  go  away  into  everlasting 
punishment :  but  the  righteous  into  life  eternal." 
(Matt.  25:46.) 

Though  our  position  is  now  established,  we 
condescend  to  notice  one  or  two  objections.  First, 
we  are  told  that  Adam  was  not  banished  from 
Eden  as  a  penalty  for  sin,  but  as  a  means  of  pre- 
venting him  from  partaking  of  the  fruit  of  the 
tree  of  life,  lest  he  should  eat,  and  live  forever. 
(See  Gen.  3  :  22,  23.)  We  reply,  the  banishment 
was  the  penalty  for  sin,  while  the  driving  out  of 
the  man  and  so  effectually  guarding  "the  way  of 
the  tree  of  life"  that  he  could  not  eat  of  its  fruit, 
are  the  reasons  furnished  by  the  Almighty  for 
inflicting  the  penalty.  These  reasons  reflect  cred- 
it upon  the  wisdom  and  love  of  the  divine  being. 
Wbv  would  not  God  allow  Adam  to  partake  of  the 


LITERAL  OB  SPIRITUAL  DEATH.  205 

fruit  of  the  tree  of  life  after  he  had  sinned  ?  Evi- 
dently because  it  would  perpetuate  his  existence 
in  a  state  of  sin,  and  thus  become  a  curse  to  him 
rather  than  a  blessing.  So  God,  in  his  infinite 
love,  places  sinful  and  guilty  man  under  suitable 
conditions ;  appoints  to  him  the  days  of  his  proba- 
tion, and  furnishes  him  with  a  Savior  and  Re- 
deemer, and  the  gospel,  in  order  that  he  may 
make  suitable  preparation,  and,  when  ready,  eat 
freely  of  the  fruit  of  the  tree  of  life,  and  live  for- 
ever in  a  state  of  purity,  peace  and  bliss.  Clearly, 
if  Adam  had  not  sinned,  he  would  not  have  been 
driven  out  of  the  garden ;  and  as  his  banishment 
was  a  punishment,  it  must,  therefore,  have  been 
the  penalty  for  sin. 

Those  who  urge  the  above  objection  to  our  po- 
sition claim  that  the  death  of  the  body  was  the 
penalty  pronounced  for  Adam's  transgression. 
But  this  position  is  not  only  subject  to  the  objec- 
tions already  named,  but  to  the  same  objections 
which  they  urge  against  the  position  they  reject. 
Why  do  we  die  the  natural  death  ?  Evidently  be- 
cause, considering  our  mortal  condition,  it  is  for 
our  greatest  good.  Any  answer  which  conflicts 
with  this  reflects  discreditably  upon  the  character 
of  God.  We  die  that  we  may  live  again  with  im- 
mortal and  glorified  bodies,  in  the  resurrection, 
and  enjoy  a  fulness  of  reward.  And  yet,  say  our 
opponents,  this  death  is  the  penalty  for  Adam's 
transgression.  An  examination  of  the  objection 
urged  serves  to  show  more  clearly  the  close  anal- 
ogy existing  between  the  first  and  second  death; 
and  whatever  the  final  doom  of  the  wicked  may 
be,  we  must  admit  that  the  unchangeable  God 
manifests  his  love  and  wisdom  in  their  separation 
from  the  righteous,  and  their  banishment  from 
the  glory  and  light  of  his  presence,  as  much  as  he 
did  in  ejecting  Adam  from  the  garden  of  Eden, 


206  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 

and  not  allowing  him  to  partake  of  the  fruit  of  the 
tree  of  life. 

Second,  our  attention  is  called  to  a  part  of 
what  God  said  to  Adam  after  his  transgression. 
(Gen.  3 : 19.)  •  "In  the  sweat  of  thy  face  shalt  thou 
eat  bread,  till  thou  return  unto  the  ground  ;  for 
out  of  it  wast  thou  taken  :  for  dust  thou  art,  and 
unto  dust  shalt  thou  return."  This,  we  are  told, 
proves  that  literal  death  was  the  penalty  for  Ad- 
am's sin.  We  reply,  that  the  penalty  for  sin  was 
to  take  effect  on  the  day  of  his  transgression  ;  but 
his  body  did  not  return  to  the  dust  for,  perhaps, 
several  hundreds  of  years  after  he  sinned.  God 
said  to  him,  "For  in  the  day  that  thou  eatest 
thereof  thou  shalt  surely  die ;"  and  after  the  fall, 
the  Lord  appears  to  Adam  and  tells  him  the  results 
of  his  sinful  and  mortal  condition,  one  of  which 
is,  "For  dust  thou  art,  and  unto  dust  shalt  thou 
return."  Temporal  death,  or  the  death  of  the 
body,  is  different  from  either  the  first  or  second 
death. 

Again ;  the  position  of  our  opponents  is  that 
Adam  commenced  to  die  as  soon  as  he  trans- 
gressed, for  they  quote  the  marginal  translation, 
"dying  thou  shalt  die,"  in  order  to  remove  the 
claim  made  by  us,  viz.,  that  Adam  was  to  die  on 
the  same  day  that  he  sinned.  If  this  be  true, 
then  Adam  was  paying  the  penalty  for  his  sin 
from  the  time  he  gave  way  to  temptation  till  he 
laid  his  body  down  in  the  dust ;  and  the  death  of 
the  body,  instead  of  being  the  penalty  for  sin,  is 
but  the  completion  of  it,  and  in  most  cases,  but  a 
very  small  portion  of  it.  But  this  claim  is  in  con- 
flict with  the  expressed  view  that  death  is  a  ces- 
sation of  conscious  existence,  is  the  penalty  for 
sin,  and  that  the  punishment  does  not  begin  till 
we  are  dead.  The  construction  put  upon  that 
marginal  translation  may  help  our  opponents  out 


GOD'S  CHARACTER.  207 

on  one  point,  but  it  leaves  them  in  a  much  worse 
condition  on  another. 

We  now  present  some  additional  reasons  for 
rejecting  the  views  of  mortal-soulists  on  the  sec- 
ond death,  or  the  future  punishment  of  the 
wicked.  These  views  are  in  plain  conflict  with  the 
character  of  God.  The  highest  standard  of  appeal 
for  all  Bible  believers ;  the  grandest  safeguard 
against  error,  in  every  form  ;  the  strongest  incen- 
tive to  an  intelligent  belief  in  and  acceptance  of 
the  truth,  is  the  character  of  God,  as  that  charac- 
ter stands  revealed  in  the  Scriptures.  That  which 
is  in  harmony  with  God  is  true ;  that  which  is  in 
conflict  with  him  is  false.  When  we  properly  ac- 
cept that  which  is  of  God,  it  leads  us  nearer  to 
him  ;  when  we  accept  for  truth  that  which  is  not 
of  God,  it  leads  us  farther  away  from  His  divine 
presence. 

The  leading  attributes  of  God's  character  are 
love,  power,  knowledge,  mercy,  justice,  impartial- 
ity, purity  and  unchangeableness.  He  is  infinite, 
hence  all  these  attributes  are  complete.  He  is 
omniscient  and  omnipotent.  That  which  is  of 
God  will  be  found  to  be  in  harmony  with  the 
attributes  named ;  that  which  is  not  of  him,  and 
therefore  untrue,  will  be  found  to  be  in  conflict 
with  one  or  more  of  them. 

The  doctrine  which  we  oppose,  teaches  that 
all  will  be  brought  forth  in  the  resurrection,  but 
none  will  be  permitted  to  remain  alive  except 
those  who  are  truly,  and  in  a  gospel  sense,  the 
children  of  God,  who,  at  that  time,  will  receive 
eternal  life.  All  others  will  be  literally  burned 
up  in  the  fires  of  gehenva,  and  thus  will  they  be 
committed  to  eternal  oblivion  !  It  will  be  seen 
that,  by  this  means,  a  very  large  majority  of  all 
who  have  lived  on  the  earth  from  the  creation  till 
the  present  time  will  lose  their  conscious  exist- 


208  ALL,  GOOD  REWARDED. 

ence,  never  more  to  be  regained  !  Is  this  in  har- 
mony with  the  purposes  of  an  all- wise  and  all-pow- 
erful God,  whose  nature  is  love  ? 

We  were  placed  here,  so  far  as  we  know,  by 
the  act  of  the  Creator  alone.  For  many  of  our 
most  important  surroundings  and  opportunities 
in  life,  we  are  not  responsible.  We  live  here  a 
few  short  years,  and  then  lie  down  in  unconscious 
sleep  till  the  day  of  judgment.  We  are  then  raised 
to  mortality  if  not  Christians,  judged,  and  immed- 
iately cast  into  literal  flames  of  literal  fire,  where  we 
are  at  once  consumed  !  But  how  are  we  judged  ? 
Millions  upon  millions  have  never  heard  the  gospel, 
and  therefore  could  not  obey  it.  Many  of  these 
have  diligently  sought  to  do  good,  so  far  as  they 
knew  how.  They  have  fed  the  hungry,  clothed 
the  naked,  comforted  those  who  were  in  distress. 
They  have  been  true  and  affectionate  companions, 
loving  and  kind  parents,  and,  withal,  good  and 
peaceable  neighbors.  But  now,  because  they  are 
not  Christians,  all  the  good  they  have  done  is  en- 
tirely ignored,  and  they  must  literally  burn  to 
ashes  in  a  lake  of  fire  and  brimstone ! 

Why  will  not  God,  who  is  infinite  in  love  and 
power,  reward  them  for  the  good  they  have  done, 
and  extend  to  them  needed  opportunities  of 
obeying  the  gospel  ?  We  can  understand  how  God 
may  in  justice  continue  to  punish  the  wilfully 
wicked  and  rebellious,  but  we  can  not  understand 
how  he  can,  in  justice  and  love,  destroy  alike  the 
most  depraved  wretch  that  ever  plunged  the  dag- 
ger to  his  neighbor's  heart,  with  the  man  who 
was  innocent  and  kind,  but  for  lack  of  opportun- 
ity, or,  in  some  cases,  for  lack  of  disposition, 
failed  to  become  a  child  of  God  in  a  gospel  sense. 
The  thought  that  such  a  penalty,  of  eternal  dura- 
tion should  be  affixed  to  all  who  are  not  in  Christ, 
without  any  regard  to  how  long  they  have  lived  on 


GRADES  OF  GLORY.  209 

the  earth  ;  what  their  opportunities  have  been  for 
learning  the  truth  as  it  is  with  Christ ;  or  the  good 
works  which  they  have  performed,  is  not  in  har- 
mony with  God's  character,  nor  the  plain  state- 
ments of  his  word. 

We  have  before  proved  that  there  will  be 
degrees  of  reward  in  the  eternal  state,  and  that  all 
will  be  judged  according  to  their  works.  In  this 
connection  we  proceed  to  show  that  God  will  re- 
ward every  good  deed,  even  though  performed  by 
one  who  is  outside  of  Christ.  How  could  it  be 
otherwise  and  God  be  entirely  just,  saying  noth- 
ing of  his  goodness  and  love? 

And  whosoever  shall  give  to  drink  unto  one  of  these 
little  ones  a  cup  of  cold  water  only,  in  the  name  of  a  disci- 
ple, verily  I  say  unto  you,  he  shall  in  no  wise  lose  his  re- 
ward.—Matt.  10:42, 

For  whosoever  shall  give  you  a  cup  of  water  to  drink  in 
my  name,  because  ye  belong  to  Christ,  verily  I  say  unto 
you,  he  shall  not  lose  his  reward.— Mark  9:41. 

When  the  Son  of  Man  shall  come  in  his  glory,  and 
all  the  holy  angels  with  him,  then  shall  he  sit  upon  the 
throne  of  his  glory:  And  before  him  shall  be  gathered  all 
nations;  and  he  shall  separate  them  one  from  another,  as 
a  shepherd  divideth  his  sheep  from  the  goats:  And  he 
shall  set  the  sheep  on  his  right  hand,  but  the  goats  on  the 
left.  Then  sh  all  the  King  say  unto  them  on  h  is  right  hand, 
Come,  ye  blessed  of  my  Father,  inherit  the  kidgdom  pre- 
pared for  you  from  the  foundation  of  the  world;  For 
I  was  an  hungered,  and  ye  gave  me  meat;  I  was  thirsty, 
and  ye  gave  me  drink;  I  was  a  stranger,  and  ye  took  me  in; 
Naked,  and  ye  clothed  me;  I  was  sick,  and  ye  visited  me; 
I  was  in  prison,  and  ye  came  unto  me.  Then  shall  the 
righteous  answer  him,  saying,  Lord,  when  saw  we  thee  an 
hungered  and  fed  thee?  or  thirsty,  and  gave  thee  drink? 
When  saw  we  thee  a  stranger,  and  took  thee  in  ?  or  naked, 
and  clothed  thee  ?  Or  when  saw  we  thee  sick,  or  in  prison, 
and  came  unto  thee  ?  And  the  King  shall  answer  and  say 
unto  them,  Verily,  I  say  unto  you,  Inasmuch  as  ye  have 
done  it  unto  one  of  the  least  of  these  my  brethren,  ye  have 
done  it  unto  me.  Then  shall  he  say  also  unto  them  on  the  left 
hand,  Depart  from  rne.  ye  cursed,  into  everlasting  fire,  pre- 
pared for  the  devil  and  his  angels:  For  I  was  an  hun- 
gered, and  ye  gave  me  no  meat;  I  was  thirsty,  and  ye  gave 


210  THREE  CLASSES  IN  MATTHEW  25. 

me  no  drink;  I  was  a  stranger,  and  ye  took  me  not  in; 
naked,  and  ye  clothed  me  not;  sick,  and  in  prison,  and  ye 
visited  me  not.  Then  shall  they  also  answer  him,  saying, 
Lord,  when  saw  we  thee  an  hungered,  or  athirst,  or  a 
stranger,  or  naked,  or  sick,  or  in  prison,  and  did  not  minis- 
ter unto  thee  ?  Then  shall  he  answer  them,  saying,  Verily, 
I  say  unto  you,  Inasmuch  as  ye  did  it  not  to  one  of  the  least 
of  these,  ye  did  it  not  to  me.  And  these  shall  go  away  into 
everlasting  punishment:  but  the  righteous  into  life  eter- 
nal.—Matt.  25:31-46. 

There  are  also  celestial  bodies,  and  bodies  terrestrial: 
but  the  glory  of  the  celestial  is  one,  and  the  glory  of  the 
terrestrial  is  another.  There  is  one  glory  of  the  sun,  and 
another  glory  of  the  moon,  and  another  glory  of  the  stars; 
for  one  star  differeth  from  another  star  in  glory.  So  also  is 
the  resurrection  of  the  dead.— 1  Cor.  15:40-42. 

Let  us  hear  the  conclusion  of  the  whole  matter:  Fear 
God  and  keep  his  commandments:  for  this  is  the  whole 
duty  of  man.  For  God  shall  bring  every  work  into  judg- 
ment, with  every  secret  thing,  whether  it  be  good,  or 
whether  it  be  evil.— Eccles.  12:13, 14. 

The  first  two  passages  quoted  clearly  refer  to 
those  who  are  not  disciples  ;  though  for  the  good 
deed  done  they  will  receive  the  same  reward  as 
disciples  will  receive  for  the  performance  of  the 
same  act.  Why  not  ? 

The  sheep  on  the  right  described  in  Matthew 
25th  chapter,  it  will  be  claimed  by  many  are  the 
children  of  the  covenant.  Let  us  suppose  they 
are.  Will  not  God  reward  those  who  are  not  his 
covenant  people  in  a  similar  way  for  the  perform- 
ance of  the  same  work?  But  before  deciding  has- 
tily please  consider  the  following  points  : 

1.  There  are  three  classes  represented  in  this 
judgment.    Christ  and  his  brethren,  the  sheep  on 
the  right,  and  the  goats  on  the  left. 

2.  There  is  not  one  word  said  concerning  be- 
lief in  Christ  and  obedience  to  the  gospel,  by  those 
DEL  the  right,  though  without  this  belief  and  obed- 
ience, none  can  be  the  children  of  the  covenant. 
They  are  admitted  into  the  kingdom  prepared  for 
Mem  "from  the  foundation  of  the  world,"  because 


THE  THREE  GLORIES.  211 

of  certain  good  works  performed,  but,  they  them- 
selves did  not  understand  what  is  so  well  under- 
stood by  all  the  intelligent  children  of  God,  viz., that 
when  they  administered  to  the  needs  of  God's 
children,  it  was  the  same  as  though  they  had  done 
it  unto  Christ. 

The  statements  of  Paul  in  Corinthians  repre- 
sent three  distinct  glories.  One  typified  by  the 
sun,  one  by  the  moon,  and  another  by  the  stars. 
The  first  evidently  represents  the  glory  that  shall 
be  enjoyed  by  the  faithful  children  of  God ;  the 
second  and  third  comprehend  all  the  varied  de- 
grees of  reward  which  shall  be  granted  to  those 
who  have  done  good,  but,  for  various  causes,  have 
not  received  the  gospel  in  this  life.  This  view 
commends  itself  to  our  judgment.  It  is  in  har- 
mony with  the  justice  and  love  of  the  infinite 
God,  in  whom  we  are  required  to  believe. 

The  last  quotation  made  is  very  comprehen- 
sive. What  can  be  the  object  of  bringing  "every 
work  into  judgment  with  every  secret  thing,"  un- 
less it  is  to  reward  for  the  good  and  punish  for  the 
evil? 

There  are,  too,  degrees  of  punishment  pro 
vided  for  in  the  judgment. 

Then  began  he  to  upbraid  the  cities  wherein  most  of  his 
mighty  works  were  done,  because  they  repented  not.  Woe 
unto  thee,  Chorazin!  woe  unto  thee,  Bethsaida!  for  if 
the  mighty  works  which  were  done  in  you  had  been  done 
in  Tyre  and  Sidon,  they  would  have  repented  long  ago  in 
sackcloth  and  ashes.  But  I  say  unto  you,  It  shall  be  more 
tolerable  for  Tyre  and  Sidon  at  the  day  of  judgment,  than 
for  you.  And  thou,  Capernaum,  which  art  exalted  unto 
heaven,  shall  be  brought  down  to  hell:  for  if  the  mighty 
works  which  have  been  done  in  thee,  had  been  done  in 
Sodom,  it  would  have  remained  until  this  day.  But  I  say 
unto  you,  That  it  shall  be  more  tolerable  for  the  land  of 
Sodom,  in  the  day  of  judgment,  than  for  thee.— Matt.  11 :20-24< 

The  reader  will  notice  that,  in  this  scripture, 
Jesus  is  speaking  only  of  the  wicked  ;  but  it  shall 
be  more  tolerable  for  some,  in  the  day  of  judg- 


212  DEGREES  OF  PUNISHMENT. 

ment,  than  for  others.  And  why  more  tolerable  ? 
Evidently  because  their  sin  has  not  been  so  great 
— they  have  not  rejected  so  much  light  and  truth. 
This  shows  that  our  opportunities  and  surround- 
ings, in  this  life,  will  be  duly  considered  in  the 
day  of  judgment. 

Therefore  to  him  that  knoweth  to  do  good,  and  doeth  it 
not,  to  him  it  is  sin.— James  4:17. 

And  this  is  the  condemnation,  that  light  is  come  into 
the  world,  and  men  loved  darkness  rather  than  light,  be- 
cause their  deeds  were  evil.— John  3:19. 

And  the  times  of  this  ignorance  God  winked  at;  but 
now  commandeth  all  men  everywhere  to  repent:  Because 
he  hath  appointed  a  day,  in  the  which  he  will  judge  the 
world  in  righteousness,  by  that  man  whom  he  hath  ordained 
whereof  he  hath  given  assurance  unto  all  men,  in  that  he 
hath  raised  him  from  the  dead.— Acts  17:30,  31. 

And  that  servant  which  knew  his  lord's  will,  and  pre- 
pared not  himself,  neither  did  according  to  his  will,  shall 
be  beaten  with  many  stripes.  But  he  that  knew  not,  and 
did  commit  things  worthy  of  stripes,  shall  be  beaten  with 
few  stripes.  For  unto  whomsoever  much  is  given,  of  him 
shall  be  much  required ;  and  to  whom  men  have  committed 
much,  of  him  they  will  ask  the  more.— Luke  12:47,  48. 

According  to  the  view  which  we  are  opposing, 
precisely  the  same  penalty  will  be  administered  to 
all  who  are  not  Christians.  The  penalty,  says  Mr. 
Grant,  is  not  "dying"  nor  "suffering,"  but  "death," 
"And  the  punishment  does  not  begin  till  they  are 
dead."  He  says  the  first  death  was  literal,  and 
"the  second  must  likewise  be  a  cessation  of  con- 
scious existence."  Consequently,  according  to  this 
dogma,  all  who  are  not  the  covenant  people  of 
God,  according  to  the  gospel,  will  suffer  the  same 
penalty,  both  as  to  its  nature  and  duration.  This 
does  violence  to  God's  justice,  wisdom  and  love, 
and  is  in  plain  conflict  with  the  principle  of  eter- 
nal judgment  as  set  forth  in  the  Scriptures.  That 
which  is  contrary  to  God,  when  accepted,  can 
never  bring  us  nearer  to  him,  but  will  surely  take 
us  farther  away. 


CONTRARY  TO  GOD'S  CHARACTER.  213 

Why  does  God  raise  up  this  innumerable  host, 
who,  we  are  told,  are  as  worthless  as  the  straw  to 
which  we  put  the  match  ?  What  good  does  it  do  ? 
Is  it  for  the  purpose  of  seeing  them  burn  ?  Why 
not  let  them  remain  in  the  grave  ?  God  is  not  a 
vindictive  being,  that  he  should  punish  merely  for 
the  sake  of  punishing.  He  always  has  a  purpose 
in  view  in  that  which  he  does,  and  that  purpose  is 
always  in  harmony  with  the  nobility  and  perfec- 
tion of  his  character.  Why  do  not  Messrs.  Grant, 
Sheldon  and  others,  tell  us  plainly  what  object  the 
divine  being  has  in  view  in  this  strange  proceed- 
ure?  Surely  this  punishment  is  of  no  benefit  to 
God  ;  it  can  not  possibly  conduce  to  the  bliss  of  the 
saints  ;  and  to  thus  disturb  the  unconscious  dead 
in  order  that  they  may  be  placed  back  in  precisely 
the  condition  in  which  they  were  found  before 
their  resurrection,  can  be  of  no  possible  benefit  to 
them.  Can  this  be  the  work  of  an  all-wise  and 
loving  Father,  who  saw  the  end  from  the  begin- 
ning, and  who  has  said,  "That  at  the  name  of 
Jesus  every  knee  shall  bow,  of  things  in  heaven, 
and  things  in  earth,  and  things  under  the  earth; 
and  that  every  tongue  should  confess  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  Lord,  to  the  glory  of  God  the  Father?" 
(Phil.  2 : 10,  11.)  Notice,  this  complete  subjection 
is  to  be  "to  the  glory  of  God  the  Father." 

The  teachings  of  our  opponents  concerning  the 
destiny  of  the  wicked,  are  in  plain  opposition  to 
the  mission  of  Jesus  Christ  into  the  world  to  de- 
stroy death.  Death  is  an  abnormal,  and  there- 
fore temporary,  condition.  If  it  abides,  Satan  is 
victorious;  if  it  is  destroyed,  God  is  victorious. 
Which  shall  it  be? 

For  since  by  man  came  death,  by  man  came  also  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead.  For  as  in  Adam  all  die,  even  so 
in  Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive.  But  every  man  in  his 
own  order:  Christ  the  first-fruits;  afterward  they  that  are 
Christ's  at  his  coming.  For  he  must  reign,  till  he  hath  put 


214  CHRIST  WILL  DESTROY  DEATH. 

all  enemies  under  his  feet.    The  last  enemy  that  shall  be 
destroyed  is  death.— 1  Cor.  15:21,  22,  23,  25,  26. 

"In  Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive."  But  how 
shall  all  be  made  alive  ?  Is  it  to  be  killed  off  im- 
mediately after  their  resurrection  and  judgment, 
and  then  left  in  the  cold  embrace  of  death  for- 
ever ?  Would  this  be  a  victory? 

Let  us  illustrate.  Suppose  that  through  a 
wicked  rebellion  in  our  government,  the  Southern, 
Eastern  and  Middle  States,  all  fall  into  the  hands 
of  the  enemy.  This  state  of  affairs  continues  for 
many  years,  during  which  time  there  is  continual 
warfare  between  the  two  powers.  Finally, 
through  the  efforts  of  a  good  and  skillful  general, 
the  rebellion  is  overcome,  and  all  acknowledge 
their  allegiance  to  the  Government  of  the  United 
States.  On  the  day  following  the  rebellion  breaks 
out  again,  and  the  enemy  takes  entire  control  of 
all  the  states  referred  to  above,  and  retains  pos- 
session of  them  forever.  Would  this  be  a  victory 
for  our  government  ?  Certainly  not ;  but  it  would 
be  a  victory  for  the  power  arrayed  against  it. 

Satan,  who  for  a  time  held  the  keys  of  death 
and  of  hell,  (hades)  will  be  "devoured,"  and  his 
power  ended,  before  the  great  and  last  resurrec- 
tion takes  place ;  at  which  time  all  the  wicked 
will  come  forth.  (See  Rev.  20 : 7-15.)  Why  should 
death  continue  after  the  destruction  of  him  who 
held  the  power  of  death  ? 

Forasmuch  then  as  the  children  are  partakers  of  flesh 
and  blood,  He  also  himself  likewise  took  part  of  the  same; 
that  through  death  he  might  destroy  him  that  had  the 
power  of  death,  that  is,  the  Devil.— Heb.  2:14. 

I  am  he  that  liveth.  and  was  dead;  and  behold,  I  am 
alive  forevermore,  Amen;  and  have  the  keys  of  hell  and  of 
death.— Rev.  1:18. 

Thus  we  see  that  Jesus  wrenched  from  the 
grasp  of  the  adversary  "the  keys"  (power  and 
authority)  "of  hell  and  of  death."  He  holds  these 
keys,  thank  God,  and  will  ever  hold  them  ;  and  in 


PROPORTION  OF  SAVED  AND  LOST.  215 

harmony  with  his  divine  power  and  love,  he  will 
unlock  the  door  of  hades  that  the  prisoners  may  go 
free ;  will  destroy  the  power  of  the  grave  that,  in 
body,  they  may  live  forever.  All  will  receive  ac- 
cording to  their  works,  whether  they  be  good  or 
whether  they  be  evil.  And,  we  believe,  but  few, 
if  any,  will  continue  in  "outer  darkness,"  or  "the 
lake  of  fire,"  throughout  the  endless  ages  of  eter- 
nity. However,  we  are  fully  prepared  to  admit 
that  just  so  long  as  the  sons  of  perdition  continue 
in  wilful  opposition  to  God  and  his  truth,  so  long 
will  they  suffer  the  torments  of  the  damned. 

So  when  this  corruptible  shall  have  put  on  incorrup- 
tion,  and  this  mortal  shall  have  put  on  immortality,  then 
shall  be  brought  to  pass  the  saying  that  is  written,  Death 
is  swallowed  up  in  victory.  O  death,  where  is  thy  sting? 
O  grave,  where  is  thy  victory?—!  Cor.  15:54,  55. 

The  population  of  the  entire  world,  a  few 
years  ago,  was  allowed  to  be  about  1,443,887,500. 
The  entire  Christian  population  is  estimated  at 
388,200,000.  More  than  two  thirds  of  this  number 
is  made  up  of  the  Roman  Catholic,  Greek  and 
Russian  churches.  According  to  these  figures  less 
than  25  per  cent.,  or  one-fourth  of  the  world's  pop- 
ulation, is  even  nominally  Christian !  But  it 
will  be  conceded  that  very  many  of  these  will 
be  found  unworthy  to  enter  into  life,  at  the  judg- 
ment, while  it  is  certain,  according  to  the  doc- 
trine of  our  opponents,  that  all  who  do  not  believe 
in  Christ  will  be  punished  with  the  second  death, 
which,  they  say,  is  a  cessation  of  conscious  exist- 
ence. 

Though  more  than  fair  to  our  opponents,  we 
will  say  that  from  Adam  till  the  destruction  of 
the  wicked,  at  the  end  of  the  world,  one-fourth 
are  found  to  be  worthy  Christians,  while  three- 
fourths  are  found  to  be  destitute  of  eternal  life. 
The  result  is  that  three-fourths  of  the  people 
whom  God  has  placed  on  the  earth  are  consigned 


216  DEATH  THE  VICTOR. 

to  the  grave,  there  to  remain  forever  and  forever, 
while  one-fourth  only  are  permitted  to  remain 
alive !  Is  this  the  way  in  which  death  will  be 
"swallowed  up  in  victory?"  Surely,  in  this  case, 
death  is  the  victor,  life  the  captive.  Life  is  swal- 
lowed up  in  victory,  and  Satan  secures  the  eternal 
destruction  of  three-fourths,  while  the  infinite 
God  must  be  contented  with  one-fourth  ! 

We  may  be  told  that  after  the  judgment, 
"there  shall  be  no  more  death,"  and  that  this  is 
the  way  in  which  death  is  to  be  destroyed.  But 
why  destroy  an  enemy  after  he  has  done  his  work  ? 
Would  it  not  comport  more  fully  with  the  divine 
wisdom  and  goodness  of  the  infinite  God,  to  de- 
stroy the  enemy  before  he  secures  within  his  eter- 
nal grasp  three-fourths  of  the  inhabitants  of  the 
world  ?  We  think  it  would. 

We  reject  this  theoretical  destiny  for  the 
wicked,  because  it  is  in  conflict  with  the  leading 
attributes  of  the  divine  Character ;  because  it  is 
in  conflict  with  the  plain  teachings  of  the  Scrip- 
tures concerning  the  principles  of  eternal  judg- 
ment, which  provide  that  there  shall  be  degrees 
of  reward  and  degrees  of  punishment ;  because  it 
stands  in  bold  opposition  to  the  leading  purpose 
for  which  Jesus  Christ  came  into  the  world,  viz., 
to  rescue  the  people  from  the  hands  of  the  enemy, 
and  to  destroy  death. 

If  it  be  asked,  Why  does  God  punish  the 
wicked?  we  reply,  that  wickedness  may  cease 
and  righteousness  prevail.  That  the  wicked,  all 
who  will,  may  have  ample  opportunity  to  learn 
that  nothing  but  an  entire  forsaking  of  sin,  and 
living  in  obedience  to  God's  laws  and  command- 
ments will  build  up  Christian  character;  and  that 
nothing  less  than  Christian  character  will  enable 
us  to  enter  into  his  "everlasting  kingdom"  and 
enjoy  the  bliss  of  heaven.  This  penalty  is  sure  to 


NATURE  OF  PUNISHMENT.  217 

follow  all  who  wilfully  disobey  God  and  continue 
in  sin.  In  this  sense  it  is  the  wrath  of  God  upon 
the  children  of  disobedience.  It  is  " wrath  and 
indignation"  against  wickedness,  but  love,  and 
only  love,  towards  the  individuals  who  are  the 
workmanship  of  his  hands.  As  God  punishes  in 
love  here,  so  it  must  be  that  he  punishes  in  love 
there.  He  is  not  a  loving  Father  here,  and  an  im- 
placable monster  there.  Our  view  is  that  in  the 
intermediate  and  resurrection  states  God  will 
place  the  wicked  in  such  places  and  under  such 
influences  as  are  best  suited  to  their  condition. 
He  does  this  for  their  permanent  and  future  good, 
and  that  the  righteous,  without  disturbance  or 
interference,  may  enjoy  the  peace  and  bliss  to 
which  they  are  justly  entitled. 

"But  will  not  the  wicked  remain  in  torment 
throughout  the  endless  ages  of  eternity?"  We 
hope  that  but  few,  if  any,  will  so  remain.  If  any 
are  determined  to  continue  in  sin  and  rebellion 
against  God,. they  must  continue  in  torment ;  but  if 
they  are  willing  to  repent  and  do  right,  there  is  a 
starting  point  for  good,  and  God  will  not  stand  in 
the  way  to  oppose,  neither  in  this  life  nor  in  the 
life  which  is  to  come.  Eternal  life,  and  everlast- 
ing punishment,  are  opposite  conditions  into 
which  the  righteous  and  the  wicked  will  fully  en- 
ter, at  the  judgment ;  but,  we  are  told,  that  if 
"everlasting  punishment"  does  not  mean  that  the 
wicked  will  forever  remain  in  torment,  then  "life 
eternal  does  not  mean  that  the  righteous  will  for- 
ever remain  in  bliss.  "Everlasting"  and  "eternal" 
come  from  the  Greek  aionios  and  literally  mean 
"age-lasting."  The  terms  apply  to  conditions  in- 
to which  the  righteous  and  the  wicked  will  enter, 
rather  than  to  duration  of  punishment.  Whether 
they  mean  never-ending  or  not,  depends  upon  the 
character  of  the  object  or  thing  to  which  they  are 


218  DURATION  OF  ETERNAL  LIFE. 

applied.  So,  in  this  case,  as  in  others,  we  must 
determine  what  is  meant  by  the  connection  in 
which  the  words  are  used. 

Eternal  life  is  the  normal  condition  for  man ; 
but  as  we  are  a  fallen  race,  it  is  only  through  the 
gospel  that  we  can  inherit  eternal  life.  The  pos- 
session of  that  life,  as  we  have  shown,  begins  here. 
"He  that  believeth  on  the  Son  hath  everlasting 
life."  (John  3:36.)  "And  shall  not  come  into 
condemnation;  but  is  passed  from  death  unto 
life."  (John  5  : 24.)  We  may,  through  transgress- 
ion, become  unworthy  and  hence  lose  everlasting 
life.  But  it  is  our  opinion,  that  when  we  have 
reached  that  point  of  progress  in  the  divine  life 
which  will  enable  us  to  partake  of  the  fruit  of  the 
tree  of  life,  we  have,  thereby,  secured  a  condition 
of  peace  and  eternal  rest  from  which  we  will 
never  fall.  We  need  not  depend  upon  the  mean- 
ing of  the  words  eternal  or  everlasting  as  express- 
ing the  permanency  of  our  hope.  John  says,  (1 
John  3:2,)  "But  we  know  that,  when  he  shall  ap- 
pear, we  shall  be  like  him ;  for  we  shall  see  him  as 
he  is."  "We  shall  be  like  Tiiro,"  and  "the  Son 
abicleth  ever."  Those  who  are  permitted  to  enter 
into  that  fulness  of  rest  will  go  no  more  out. 

The  condition  which  necessitates  everlasting 
punishment  is  an  abnormal  one.  It  is  adminis- 
tered not  for  the  purpose  of  perpetuating  this  con- 
dition, but  that  it  may  be  removed.  We  do  not 
pretend  to  say  how  long  the  wicked  will  be  pun- 
ished, nor  how  severe  that  punishment  will  be. 
This  remains  with  God,  and  it  is  our  duty  to  pro- 
claim the  conditions  of  life  and  salvation  ;  but  we 
may  say  with  safety  that  the  duration  and  charac- 
ter of  the  punishment  will  depend  upon  the  con- 
dition and  guilt  of  the  ones  to  be  punished.  The 
sufferings  of  the  ungodly  will  evidently  vary  in 
duration  as  well  as  intensity.  Is  it  not  reasonable 


GRANT  AND  JONES  ON  PUNISHMENT.          219 

to  suppose  that  the  punishment  will  consist  large- 
ly of  the  loss  we  shall  sustain,  with  a  clear  con- 
sciousness of  our  folly  and  wrong  ?  This  will  be  hell 
indeed. 

While  Mr.  Grant  is  shrewd  enough  to  claim 
that  conscious  suffering  is  no  part  of  the  penalty 
for  sin,  he  nevertheless  runs  against  some  rocks  of 
truth  which  other  mortal-soulists  have  tried  to 
climb  over  in  a  different  way.  His  policy,  how- 
ever, seems  to  be  to  keep  as  silent  as  possible 
about  these  rocks,  and,  if  possible,  cover  them  up 
with  such  material  as  he  chooses  to  use. 

He  does  not  tell  us  that  his  theory  necessitates 
the  claim  that  all  who  are  not  true  Christians, 
when  they  leave  this  world,  are  numbered  with 
the  wicked,  and  must  all  pay  the  same  penalty. 
The  best  man  you  ever  knew,  who  made  no  pro- 
fession of  Christianity,  is  punished  the  same  as 
Gitteau  and  Booth,  or  the  same  as  the  most  de- 
praved wretch  ever  known  to  man,  who,  after  sat- 
iating his  hellish  lust,  murders  the  innocent  wife 
and  mother,  with  her  children  about  her,  lest  his 
crime  should  be  made  known  !  Why  does  not  Mr. 
Grant  attempt  to  reconcile  his  theory  of  future 
punishment  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible,  that 
there  are  degrees  of  reward  and  degrees  of  punish- 
ment provided  for  in  the  judgment?  Why  does 
he  ignore  this  teaching,  and  then,  with  apparent 
candor,  when  treating  on  another  point,  ask, 
"Why  not  believe  the  Bible?" 

Mr.  Jones  sees  the  difficulty  in  the  way,  and 
attempts  to  bridge  it  over  in  the  following  man- 
ner: 

The  Savior  declares  that  "He  that  knew  not,  and  did 
commit  things  worthy  of  stripes,  shall  be  beaten  with  FEW 
stripes."  Luke  12:48.  Now  this  harmonizes  perfectly  with 
the  idea  that  some  will  suffer  MORE  than  others  in 
the  manner  of  their  being  put  out  of  existence  or  in  the 
pangs  they  will  endure  before  breathing  their  last,  but  I 


220  WHY  DO  THE  WICKED  SUFFER? 

cannot  see  how  a  perpetual  laying  on  of  stripes  throughout 
countless  millions  of  years  can  be  called  a  "FEW"  stripes!— 

"THANATOPSIS"  pp.  30,  31. 

In  the  above  quotation  dying  and  suffering 
are  made  the  penalty  for  sin,  in  direct  opposition 
to  the  expressed  views  of  Mr.  Grant.  Mr.  Grant 
says  "the  punishment  does  not  begin  till  they  are 
dead,"  while  Mr.  Jones  has  it  to  begin  when  they 
commence  to  die,  and,  we  suppose,  end  when  they 
are  dead.  Which  is  right? 

But  Mr.  Jones  has  undertaken  a  larger  job 
than  his  theory  will  enable  him  to  properly  and 
consistently  dispose  of.  For  the  sake  of  the  the- 
ory, it  would  have  been  better  to  have  pursued 
the  policy  of  Mr.  Grant,  and  never  to  have 
mentioned  these  stubborn  facts  which  lie  in  the 
way.  Just  think  of  individuals  being  conscious 
of  their  sufferings,  in  literal  flames  of  flre,  till  they 
breathe  "their  last ! "  Again ;  why  should  God  be 
so  particular  about  punishing  the  wicked  accord- 
ing to  their  wickedness,  inasmuch  as  the  eternal 
extinction  of  conscious  being  is  the  result  ?  What 
purpose  has  he  in  view  ?  It  cannot  be  the  good  of 
the  individuals  punished,  for  the  end  of  this  pun- 
ishment is  the  final  end  of  their  conscious  exist- 
ence. It  can  not  possibly  add  anything  to  the 
comfort  and  bliss  of  the  saved,  nor  can  it  furnish 
them  with  the  least  ray  of  hope  for  the  future  of 
their  relatives  and  friends.  Surely,  it  can  not  add 
anything  to  the  happiness  of  God,  nor  be  of  any 
possible  benefit  to  him,  unless  indeed  he  is  a  vin- 
dictive wretch,  rather  than  a  God  of  infinite  love. 
The  only  being  whom  we  can  think  of  that  this 
peculiar  kind  of  punishment  would  please  and 
gratify  is  the  Devil.  He  would  undoubtedly  take 
comfort  in  seeing  the  countless  millions  burn  to 
ashes — those  who  had  served  him  best  burning  the 
longest,  we  suppose.  But  if  the  Devil  himself 
was  in  the  flre,  it  might  not  even  gratify  him. 


JONES  OB  GRANT— WHICH  ?  221 

But  it  would  certainly  be  a  great  victory  for  Satan 
if  he  could  only  be  spared  alive  to  enjoy  it. 

We  may  be  told  that  the  good  done  will  con- 
sist in  putting  an  end  to  wickedness,  and  leaving 
the  redeemed  in  full  possession  of  the  glorified 
earth.  But  if  this  is  the  final  destiny  of  more 
than  three-fourths  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth, 
why  are  they  brought  forth  in  the  resurrection  ? 
and  why  are  they  punished  to  no  purpose,  save, 
possibly,  the  gratification  of  the  one  whom  God 
makes  it  his  chief  business  to  oppose?  Why  not 
leave  them  in  the  grave,  where  we  are  told,  the 
whole  man  goes  at  death,  and  where  there  is  "no 
work,  nor  device,  nor  knowledge,  nor  wisdom  ?  " 

The  leading  position  of  Mr.  Jones  is  that 
death  is  the  penalty  for  sin,  and  that  death  is  the 
cessation  of  conscious  existence.  In  this  he  agrees 
with  Mr.  Grant.  Listen  to  what  he  says : 

That  the  extinction  of  their  being  will  be  the  ultimate 
punishment  of  the  wicked  is  evident  from  such  plain  as- 
sertions of  Scripture  as  that  "The  wages  of  sin  is  DEATH." 
Rom.  6:23.  Notice,  it  does  not  say  that  "The  wages  of  sin 
is  TORTURE."— Ibid.  p.  29. 

Now  which  will  Mr.  Jones  have  us  believe, 
that  men  are  tortured  according  to  their  sins,  at 
the  time  they  are  cast  into  the  burning  lake,  or 
that  they  are  not  tortured,  and  the  punishment 
does  not  begin  till  they  are  dead  ?  Are  we  left  to 
choose  the  position  we  like  best  ?  or  are  we  ex- 
pected to  accept  both  of  them  ?  The  efforts  made 
by  these  two  authors  to  prove  that  an  eternal  ces- 
sation of  conscious  being  is  the  final  state  of 
the  wicked,  should  be  sufficient  to  prove  to  the 
satisfaction  of  all  that  this  doctrine  is  not  defens- 
ible from  a  Bible  standpoint.  The  only  way  to 
get  along  with  it  is  to  examine  such  passages  as 
seem  to  most  favor  the  theory  and  ignore  others ; 
but  such  a  course  is  too  superficial  and  dangerous 
to  be  accepted  as  right. 


222          CHRIST  DIED  THE  SPIRITUAL  DEATH. 

Christ  died  the  temporal  death  that  -'he  might 
destroy  him  that  had  the  power  of  death,  that  is, 
the  devil."  He  died  the  spiritual  death  that  all 
might  escape  it  who  would  truly  believe  in  him. 
Such  a  manifestation  of  divine  love  touches  the 
nobler  aspirations  of  the  soul,  and  challenges  our 
highest  admiration.  Thus  it  becomes  necessary 
that  all  should  hear  the  gospel  preached,  as  it 
shall  be  spoken  by  virtue  of  a  commandment  of 
God  to  his  servants,  either  in  this  life  or  in  eter- 
nity;  and  all  those  who  will  not  accept  it  and  for- 
sake their  sins,  must  suffer  the  second  death. 

Does  the  reader  doubt  that  Christ  died  the 
spiritual  death  as  well  as  the  temporal  ?  Let  us 
see.  Had  he  not  died  at  all,  would  we  not  all  have 
to  die  the  second  death,  the  penalty  for  sin? 
Well,  if  we  do  not  have  to  pay  that  penalty,  as 
a  part  of  Adam's  race,  is  it  not  because  Christ  has 
paid  it  for  us?  Notice,  when  the  time  of  his  cru- 
cifixion drew  near,  he  suffered  the  most  terrible 
agony.  He  prayed  that  the  cup  might  be  taken 
from  him,  but  was  willing  to  drink  it  if  the  Fath- 
er so  required.  He  said  : 

Take  away  this  cup  from  me:  nevertheless  not  what  I 
will,  but  what  thou  wUt.— Mark  14:36. 

And  being  in  agony  he  prayed  more  earnestly:  and  his 
sweat  was  as  it  were  great  drops  ot  blood  falling  down  to 
the  ground.— Luke  22:44. 

He  is  nailed  to  the  cross.  Before  yielding  up 
the  ghost  he  cries  twice  "with  a  loud  voice,"  "My 
God,  my  God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me?" 
Matt.  27:46-50. 

Men  have  cheerfully  met  the  martyr's  fate 
without  even  intimating  a  desire  for  release.  Was 
Jesus  less  courageous  than  they?  Surely  not. 
Why,  then,  did  he  pray,  "Take  away  this  cup  from 
me?"  And  why  did  he  say  to  the  Father,  "My 
God,  my  God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me?"  Evi- 
dently, because  the  father  withdrew  his  presence, 


MEN'S  OPPORTUNITIES.  222 

and  left  him  to  suffer  .the  pangs  of  the  spiritual 
death,  as  well  as  Ihe  temporal,  the  former  being 
much  greater  than  the  latter.  Our  view  is  that 
God  will  furnish  all  men  with  such  opportunities 
of  obeying  the  truth  as  his  justice  and  love  re- 
quire ;  and  then,  if  they  will  not  obey,  they  must 
endure  that  punishment,  which  caused  even  the 
man  Christ  Jesus  to  shrink,  and,  as  it  were,  to 
bleed  at  every  pore.  How  long  the  punishment 
will  last,  as  applied  to  each  individual,  and  how 
intense  it  shall  be,  remains  with  God  ;  we  do  not 
know.  One  thing  is  certain,  however,  God  will 
not  punish  simply  for  the  sake  of  punishing.  Nei- 
ther his  justice  nor  love  will  be  violated  in  the 
administration  of  the  penalty  for  sin. 

The  judgment  which  shall  be  passed  upon  all 
people,  at  the  last  day,  is  evidently  called  "eternal 
judgment,"  because  God,  the  Judge,  is  an  eternal 
being.  According  to  his  unchangeable  justice 
and  love,  he  will  ever  reward  the  good  and  punish 
the  evil.  In  this  sense,  the  torment  is  "endless," 
and  the  fire  is  "unquenchable."  There  is  no  es- 
cape from  the  judgments  of  God,  which  are  always 
just  and  right.  Let  every  one  take  heed  and  see 
that  his  life  is  in  harmony  with  God  and  his  truth. 

We  close  this  chapter  with  this  significant 
point.  After  the  general  resurrection  and  judg- 
ment have  taken  place;  after  the  "new  earth" 
has  appeared,  with  "the  holy  city,  new  Jerusalem,'1 
established  upon  it ;  the  wicked  are  referred  toby 
the  angel  who  spake  to  John,  as  living,  conscious 
beings. 

He  that  is  unjust,  let  him  be  unjust  still:  and  he  which 
is  filthy,  let  him  be  filthy  still:  and  he  that  is  righteous, 
let  him  be  righteous  still:  and  he  that  is  holy,  let  him  be 
holy  still— Rev.  22:11. 

If  the  righteous  and  holy,  spoken  of  in  this 
verse,  are  conscious,  so  are  the  unjust  and  filthy. 


224  THE  GREAT  CONFLICT. 

Blessed  are  they  that  do  his  commandments,  that  they 
may  have  right  to  the  tree  of  life,  and  may  enter  in  through 
the  gates  into  the  city.  For  without  are  dogs,  and  sorcer- 
ers, and  whoremongers,  and  murderers,  and  idolaters,  and 
whosoever  loveth  and  maketh  a  lie.— Be v.  22:14, 15. 

If  it  be  said,  "It  does  not  say  that  these 
wicked  are  conscious,"  we  reply,  nor  does  it  say 
that  these  righteous  are  conscious ;  but  the  man- 
ner in  which  both  classes  are  spoken  of  plainly 
implies  that  they  are  living,  conscious  beings.  The 
righteous  are  enjoy i ng  the  presence  and  glory  of  God 
in  the  golden  city ;  but  the  wicked  are  "without" — 
banished  from  his  presence— in  "outer  darkness," 
where  "there  shall  be  weeping  and  gnashing  of 
teeth,"  which  is  the  second  death. 

The  great  conflict  between  God  and  Satan, 
between  righteousness  and  sin,  will  be  brought  to 
a  glorious  finality  ;  and  the  infinite  One  will  solve 
the  troublesome  problem,  and  solve  it  well,  with- 
out putting  an  end  to  the  conscious  existence  of 
the  greater  part  of  the  human  family,  at  the  judg- 
ment !  Had  this  been  his  chosen  plan,  the  destruc- 
tion of  Tyre,  and  Sidon,  and  Sodom,  and  the 
whole  Antediluvian  world,  would  not  have  been 
temporal,  but  eternal,  thus  avoiding  the  necessity 
of  calling  them  up  in  the  resurrection  and  destroy- 
ing them  the  second  time  !  After  they  had  been 
"destroyed"  by  water  and  "eternal  fire,"  why  not 
call  it  so  much  of  the  good  work  done,  instead  of 
bringing  up  new  Sodomites,  Gommorahites  and 
antediluvians,  condemning  them  all,  for  what  the 
old  ones  did,  and  then,  so  as  to  keep  them  from 
sinning,  we  suppose,  putting  an  end  to  their  con- 
scious existence  forever  1 


THE  THIEF  ON  THE  CROSS.  225 


CHAPTER  IV. 


ADDENDA. 
OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 

THE  THIEF  ON  THE  CROSS. 

By  reference  to  the  Grant  and  Long  Debate, 
p.  171,  we  discover  that  Mr.  Grant  gives  his  auth- 
ority for  placing  the  comma  after  "today, "instead 
of  before,  as  found  in  our  Bibles.  The  authority 
cited  is  the  Curetonian  Syriac,  which,  says  Mr. 
Grant,  "is  the  oldest  version  known  in  the  world, 
and  is  in  the  British  Museum."  He  also  says, 
when  introducing  his  proof,  "I  turn  to  the  high- 
est authority  known ;  that  is,  to  the  Curetonian 
Syriac. 

If  the  reader  will  turn  back  to  pp.  124-5-6,  he 
will  see  that  we  have  already  effectually  disposed 
of  this  question  of  punctuation ;  and  our  only  ob- 
ject in  alluding  to  it  here  is  to  remove  Mr.  Grant's 
last  prop.  On  pp.  69,  70,  we  presented  some  of  the 
statements  of  Dr.  Roberts,  a  member  of  the  Eng- 
lish Committee  of  Revision,  as  found  on  p.  26  of 
"COMPANION  TO  THE  REVISED  VERSION  OF  THE 
NEW  TESTAMENT."  We  present  the  whole  para- 
graph in  this  connection,  as  a  sufficient  expose  of 
Mr.  Grant's  unproved  assertion,  that  the  Cureton- 
ian Syriac  "is  the  highest  authority  known."  Dr. 
Roberts  says : 

SYRIAC  VERSIONS.  Of  these  the  most  important  are 
Peshito,  the  Philoxenian,  the  Harclean,  and  the  Cureton- 
ian. By  far  the  best  of  these  is  the  Peshito  (i.  e.,  Simple,) 
which  is  truly  an  admirable  translation.  There  is  no 
doubt  that  it  was  made  in  the  second  century,  and  were  we 
sure  that  we  possessed  it  in  its  original  form  it  would  thus 
be  of  the  very  highest  authority.  The  other  Syriac  Ver- 
sions do  not  rank  high  as  translations,  and  the  Ouretoriian 
embraces  only  fragments  of  the  Gospels. 


226  GRANT'S  HIGHEST  AUTHORITY. 

Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  Dr.  Roberts  men- 
tions four  Syriac  versions,  placing  the  Curetonian 
in  the  position  of  least  importance.  Of  this  last 
mentioned,  with  all  others  except  the  Peshito,  the 
one  we  have  quoted,  he  says,  they  "do  not  rank 
high  as  translations,  and  the  Curetonian  embraces 
only  fragments  of  the  Gospels."  So  much  for  Mr. 
Grant's  "highest  authority  known." 

Mr.  Grant  informs  us  that  punctuation  was 
not  introduced  till  the  16th  century.  Also,  that 
the  whole  argument  rests  on  the  doubtful  posi- 
tion of  that  comma.  Very  well.  Is  it  not  a  fact 
that  punctuation,  like  all  other  things  of  the 
kind,  when  first  introduced  and  first  used,  was 
but  imperfectly  understood  ?  The  longer  it  was 
in  use,  the  better  it  was  understood  ;  and,  there- 
fore, all  other  things  being  equal,  the  last  punctu- 
ation of  this  text  is  better  than  the  first.  The 
Revised  Version,  as  we  have  seen,  places  the  com- 
ma after  "thee"  and  before  "today,"  the  same  as  it 
is  in  King  James'  Version ;  this  punctuation  is, 
therefore,  reliable,  and  the  text  continues  to 
stand  there  to  confront  and  annoy  all  who  are 
determined  to  believe  that  death  ends  the  con- 
scious being  of  man. 

PSALM  9 : 17. 

The  wicked  shall  be  turned  into  hell,   and  all  the  na- 
tions that  forget  God. 

It  is  not  difficult  to  see  from  the  position  of 
our  opponents  on  this  text,  in  connection  with  their 
other  positions,  that  in  defending  their  chosen 
theories  they  sometimes  get  into  very  close  places. 
Hell,  as  found  in  the  above  text,  comes  from  the 
Hebrew  sheol,  its  Greek  equivalent  being  hades. 
The  claim  is  that  whenever  hell  is  translated  from 
either  of  these  originals,  it  refers  to  the  grave,  the 
place  where  the  whole  man  goes  at  death.  They 
affirm  that  gehenna,  not  sheol  or  hades,  is  the  word 


GRANT'S  AND  SHELDON'S  CONTRADICTIONS.     227 

which   describes  the  future  punishment  of  the 
wicked. 

Hell  is  an  old  Saxon  word  which  signifies  to  cover; 
hence,  when  a  thing  was  helled,  it  was  covered  up.  This 
word  was  appropriately  employed  to  represent  the  pjace 
where  the  dead  were  laid,  and  buried;  but  we  repeat,  hades 
and  sheol,  in  the  Bible,  never  refer  to  the  future  punish- 
ment of  the  wicked,  or  a  place  of  punishment  between 
death  and  the  resurrection.— "WHAT  is  MAN,"  p.  22. 

Mr.  Sheldon,  after  disposing  of  sheol,  hades  and 
tartarus,  says : 

Gehenna  clearly  brings  to  view  the  future  hell  of  the 
ungodly,  but  as  clearly  disproves  its  present'  existence.— 

"ADVENTI8M,"  p.  94. 

On  page  86,  after  mentioning  sheol,  hades,  tnrtar- 
us,  and  gehenna,  Mr.  Sheldon  says  : 

The  first  three  terms  here  mentioned  never  mean  a 
burning  hell,  while  gehenna  does. 

And  then  on  page  87,  after  quoting  Psalms 
9 : 17,  he  stops  to  explain,  and  in  doing  so  goes 
clear  back  on  his  own  position  in  the  following 
manner : 

The  state  of  the  dead  who  experience  the  second  death 
is  here  spoken  of— the  future  state  of  the  wicked. 

Surely,  if  this  is  not  a  tangled  web,  we  have 
never  seen  one. 

Mr.  Grant  does  no  better,  for  when  confronted 
with  this  text,  by  Mr.  Long,  in  debate,  he  explains 
in  the  following  manner  : 

Here  the  word  turned  is  "shoov"  (to  return,  turn  back,) 
hence,  it  is  not  said  that  the  wicked  shall  be  sent  to  hell; 
but  that  they  shall  be  returned,  or  sent  back  to  sheol  or 
hades,  "which  is  the  second  death." 

Thus  these  two  authors  and  leading  represent- 
atives of  the  C.  A.  Church,  both  contradict  thern- 
selvs  squarely.  First,  they  claim  that  sheol  and 
hades  never  represent  the  punishment  of  the 
wicked;  and  second,  that  sheol,  as  found  in 
Psalms  9:17,  refers  to  the  punishment  of  the 
wicked,  or  "the  second  death."  Their  theory 
forces  them  to  take  the  position  referred  to  on  the 
text  under  consideration,  in  order  to  avoid  the 


228  DR.  YOUNG  ON  THE  HEBREW. 

admission  they  would  otherwise  be  compelled  to 
make,  viz.,  that  there  is  punishment  for  the 
wicked,  in  sheol,  or  hades,  between  death  a^id  the 
resurrection. 

Dr.  Young  gives  shub,  not  shoov,  as  the  He- 
brew word  from  which  "turned"  is  translated, 
and  the  literal  meaning,  "to  turn  back."  We  are 
prepared  to  admit  that  "returned,"  as  given  by 
Mr.  Grant,  may  be  the  more  faithful  translation. 
It  is  so  rendered  in  the  Kevised  Version.  But 
this  rendering  does  not  justify  the  construction 
put  upon  the  text  by  Messrs.  Grant  and  Sheldon, 
nor  does  it  help  their  position  in  the  least.  The 
leading  thoughts  seem  to  be  these:  While  the 
wicked  are  running  heedlessly  along  in  their  sin- 
ful career,  they  shall  be  suddenly  stopped  or 
turned  back,  by  death,  when  they  shall  go  into 
sheol,  "the  unseen  state"  or  "the  abode  of  departed 
spirits,"  where  they  and  "all  the  nations  that  for- 
get God  "  will  be  reserved  under  punishment  unto 
the  day  of  judgment.  The  text  shows  that  in 
sheol  (hell)  there  is  a  degree  of  punishment 
for  the  wicked  between  death  and  the  resurrec- 
tion. Were  it  not  so,  why  should  the  Psalmist 
say  that  "the  wicked,"  and,  "all  the  nations  that 
forget  God,"  shall  be  turned  into  hell.  The 
righteous  as  well  as  the  wicked  go  to  sheol,  or 
hades,  at  death,  but,  like  Lazarus,  the  former  en- 
ter into  a  condition  of  conscious  rest,  while  the 
latter,  like  the  rich  man,  are  in  "torment." 

There  is  no  evidence  that  will  prove  the  text 
ander  consideration  to  refer  to  the  punishment  of 
the  wicked,  in  the  final  judgment.  However,  if 
this  be  its  true  application,  our  opponents  are  con- 
fronted with  another  difficulty.  It  is  conceded 
that  "hell  fire,"  "the  lake  of  fire,"  and  "hell" 
when  it  comes  from  geh^nna,  all  refer  to  the  "sec- 
ond death."  This  death,  which  is  the  penalty  for 


SHEOL  &  GEHENNA  USED  INTERCHANGEABLY.     229 

sin,  according  to  Mr.  Grant,  does  not  begin  till  we 
are  dead.  We  have,  therefore,  according  to  this 
interpretation,  (1)  sheol  and  gehenna  used  inter- 
changeably, which  position  our  opponents  have 
always  stoutly  denied;  and  (2)  we  have  literal  fire, 
gehenna,  or  "hell  fire,"  and  literal  death,  both  as 
the  penalty  for  sin!  But  they  are  cast  into  "the 
lake  of  fire,"  or  "hell  fire,"  (gehenna,)  when  alive; 
and  part  of  the  time,  at  least,  while  the  fire  is 
doing  its  work,  they  are  conscious  sufferers,  and 
actual  torment  is  thus  made,  at  least,  a  part  of  the 
penalty  for  sin.  In  this  case,  what  becomes  of 
the  position  to  which  every  mortal-soulist  is  logic- 
ally driven,  that  "the  punishment  does  not  begin 
till  they  are  dead?" 

Allow  us  to  suggest.  Would  it  not  be  more 
consistent  to  claim  that  literal  death  only  (i.  e., 
the  extinction  of  conscious  being)  is  the  penalty 
for  sin.  That  they  are  first  killed  (not  by  fire, 
but  in  some  other  way,  in  order  that  they  may  be 
punished  for  their  sins)  and  then  their  dead  bodies 
are  thrown  into  gehenna,  not  as  a  punishment, 
but  for  the  purpose  of  destroying  corrupt  matter, 
just  as  the  Jews  cast  their  offal  and  dead  corpses 
into  the  "Valley  of  Hinnom,"  or  gehenna,  for  the 
sole  purpose  of  getting  rid  of  such  troublesome 
and  useless  material,  and  not  as  a  punishment  for 
sin.  True,  this  position  would  come  in  plain  con- 
flict with  those  passages  which  make  "hell  fire," 
or  "outer  darkness,"  the  penalty  for  sin;  but  not 
more  than  the  positions  now  assumed  by  our  op- 
ponents, are  in  conflict  with  portions  of  the  word; 
and  it  may  be  that  they  would  be  able  to  fix  up 
these  passages  so  as  to  get  along.  Will  our  oppo- 
nents adhere  to  their  present  interpretation  of 
Psalms  9: 17,  in  connection  with  their  expressed 
views  on  sheol,  hades,  and  gehenna,  or  will  they  be 
able  to  see  the  necessity  for  revision? 


230  CONTRADICTORY  POSITIONS. 

EVERLASTING  PUNISHMENT. 

Mr.  Grant  says,  "No  man  believes  in  eternal 
punishment  stronger  than  the  writer."  He  claims 
that  the  Greek  aionion,  translated  "everlasting" 
and  "eternal,"  as  found  in  Matt.  25:46,  signifies 
unending  bliss  for  the  righteous,  and  unending 
punishment  for  the  wicked.  But  in  meeting  the 
positions  of  Harry  A.  Long,  in  public  debate,  on 
the  words  "everlasting"  and  "eternal,"  Mr.  Grant 
quotes  Canon  Farrar,  Jeremy  Taylor,  Charles 
Kingsley,  and  others,  with  a  number  of  passages 
from  the  Bible,  to  prove  that  "everlasting,"  "eter- 
nal," and  "forever,"  do  not  imply  unending  dura- 
tion. Why  does  Mr.  Grant  assume  these  two 
positions,  which,  as  he  presents  them,  are  par- 
tially in  conflict  with  each  other?  Notice,  his 
basic  reason  for  declaring  in  favor  of  an  unending 
punishment,  is  that  the  same  Greek  word  aionion, 
which  describes  the  bliss  of  the  righteous, 
also  describes  the  punishment  of  the  wicked.  (See 
"WHAT  is  MAN?"  p.  24.)  The  apparent  reason 
for  the  first  claim  is  to  make  the  Scriptures  har- 
monize with  the  dogma  that  the  future  punish- 
ment of  the  wicked  is  the  annihilation  of  their 
conscious  being ;  hence,  the  punishment  must  be 
unending,  you  know.  The  reason  for  the  second 
claim,  that  everlasting,  eternal,  and  forever,  do 
-  not  mean  endless  duration,  appears  to  be  this : 
Mr.  Long,  his  opponent  in  debate,  believed  in 
unending  torment  as  the  future  punishment  of 
the  wicked.  He  gave  his  reasons  for  so  believing, 
calling  attention  to  the  words  everlasting,  eter- 
nal, and  forever.  Mr.  Grant  feels  that  something 
must  be  done,  so  attacks,  at  once,  the  claim  that 
these  words  signify  unending  duration. 

Jeremy  Taylor  is  quoted  as  follows : 
Everlasting  signifies  only  to  the  end  of  its  own  proper 
period. 

Charles  Kingsley : 


CONFLICTING  VIEWS.  231 

The  word  [aionion]  is  never  used  in  Scripture,  or  any- 
where else,  in  the  sense  of  endless  (vulgarly  called  eter- 
nally.) It  always  meant,  both  in  Scripture  and  out,  a  per- 
iod of  time.  Else  how  could  it  have  a  plural  ?— "GRANT  AND 
LONG  DEBATE,"  p.  190. 

Now  admitting  this  last  position  to  be  cor- 
rect, what  becomes  of  the  first?  And  if  these 
words  do  not  mean  endless  duration,  as  claimed 
by  these  writers,  and  endorsed  by  Mr.  Grant,  then 
what  becomes  of  the  claim  made  upon  the  very 
strength  of  the  phrase,  "everlasting  punishment," 
that  the  punishment  of  the  wicked  will  never 
end? 

That  which  is  true  does  not  necessitate  the 
advocacy  of  conflicting  views ;  but  when  we  affirm 
that  which  is  not  true,  and  therefore  not  defensi- 
ble, we  cannot  get  through  without  it.  We  ad- 
here to  the  positions  announced  in  the  last  chap- 
ter, viz. :  The  words  everlasting,  eternal,  and  for- 
ever, do  not  establish  the  unending  bliss  of  the 
righteous,  or  the  unending  punishment  of  the 
wicked  ;  but  eternal  life,  which  is  the  result  of 
faith  in  God  and  obedience  to  the  gospel,  is  the 
normal  condition  of  man,  and  is,  therefore,  as 
applied  to  the  righteous,  unending  in  its  dura- 
tion. Punishment  is  an  abnormal  condition, 
hence  the  Almighty  is  constantly  exercising  his 
infinite  power  to  overcome  it.  It  is  eternal  only 
in  this  sense,  the  penalty  ever  remaining  with 
God — fixed  and  sure,  to  be  administered  to  those 
who  transgress  his  laws,  its  duration  and  inten- 
sity, as  applied  to  individuals,  depending  upon 
the  comparative  guilt  of  the  ones  punished.  The 
object  of  the  penalty  is  to  overcome  sin  and  save 
the  individual.  If  any  remain  in  punishment 
throughout  the  endless  ages  of  eternity,  (O  what  a 
long  time  that  is !)  it  will  be  because  they  prefer 
to  live  in  continued  opposition  to  God's  holy  will. 
How  can  it  be  otherwise  ? 


232  SHELDON'S  SOPHISTRY. 

SPIRITUAL  DEATH. 

Speaking  of  the  punishment  of  the  wicked, 
Mr.  Sheldon  says : 

"The  wages  of  sin  is  death."    (Rom.  6:23.;    What  death  ? 
.    .    .    Not  spiritual  death,  a  death  in  "trespasses  and 
sins,"  for  that  is  the  very  thins  that  renders  man  deserv- 
ing of  punishment,  instead  of  being  the  punishment  itself. 
— "ADVENTISM,"  p.  99. 

Thus,  by  means  of  a  little  sophistry,  an  at- 
tempt is  made  to  put  to  one  side  forever  the  claim 
that  spiritual  death  is  the  penalty  for  sin.  But 
our  position  is  not  injured  in  the  least  by  what 
Mr.  Sheldon  has  said.  We  have  already  shown  by 
evidences  which  our  opponents  will  never  be  able 
to  move  out  of  their  way,  that  when  we  obey  the 
gospel  of  Christ,  we  "pass  from  death  unto  life." 
So,  at  the  judgment,  those  who  have  eternal  life, 
are  the  very  ones  who  receive  eternal  life  as  a  re- 
ward. The  wicked,  who  reject  the  gospel,  do,  at 
that  very  time,  bring  themselves  into  a  compara- 
tive state  of  banishment  and  death ;  and  when 
the  time  for  a  more  complete  separation  shall  have 
come,  they  will  experience  a  fulness  of  that  "out- 
er darkness"  which  they  have  incurred  by  yield- 
ing themselves  servants  to  sin.  Those  who  are  in 
a  state  of  life  receive  life  as  a  reward,  while  those 
who  are  in  a  state  of  death  receive  death  as  a  re- 
ward. 

Our  position  is  correct,  and  therefore  defensi- 
ble. Life  is  given  to  those  who  are  alive,  and 
death  to  those  who  are  dead.  Eternal  life,  and 
death,  or  eternal  death,  are  opposite  conditions  of 
conscious  existence.  And  as  the  result  of  obedi- 
ence to  God,  is  life,  here,  so  it  will  be  life,  "more 
abundantly,"  at  the  resurrection  and  judgment: 
and  as  the  result  of  disobedience  to  God  here,  is 
death,  so  it  will  be  death,  of  the  same  kind,  but 
greater  in  degree,  at  the  judgment  day. 


PUNISHMENT  OF  THE  WICKED.  233 

"DESTROY,"  "PERISH,"  "CONSUME,"  ETC. 
We  have  already  killed  the  force  of  any  argu- 
ment which  can  be  made  in  support  of  the  anni- 
hilation of  the  conscious  being  of  the  wicked, 
based  upon  the  Bible  use  of  the  above  words ;  but 
we  will  condescend  to  give  them  a  brief  examina- 
tion. The  facts  that  the  future  punishment  of  the 
wicked  is  spiritual  death ;  and  that  gehenna,  trans- 
lated "hell,"  and  "hell  flre,"  is  used  metaphorical- 
ly? by  Jesus  himself,  should  be  a  sufficient  answer 
to  any  argument  based  upon  the  words  "destroy," 
"perish,"  "consume,"  etc.,  as  they  are  applied  to  the 
punishment  of  the  wicked.  A  moment's  reflection 
ought  to  convince  any  one  that  in  the  descriptions 
of  the  future  bliss  of  the  righteous,  and  the  future 
punishment  of  the  wicked,  the  use  of  figures  be- 
comes necessary.  How  could  we  understand  them 
without  the  use  of  this  figurative  language  ?  If  it 
be  said  the  punishment  is  death  (a  cessation  of  con- 
scious existence)  and  the  reward  is  life,  and  that 
is  all  there  is  of  it,  then,  we  reply,  there  could  be 
no  possible  purpose  in  the  use  of  other  terms  and 
phrases,  descriptive  of  future  punishment,  except 
to  confuse  and  produce  ambiguity.  Moreover, 
this  position  makes  the  reward  of  the  righteous 
consist  of  mere  conscious  existence,  and  nothing 
more,  inasmuch  as  it  is  the  direct  opposite  of  the 
punishment  of  the  wicked. 

The  reader  will  please  not  forget  that  accord- 
ing to  the  theory  which  we  oppose,  a  blotting  out 
of  conscious  existence  is  the  punishment,  and  it 
does  not  begin  till  we  are  dead.  Why,  then,  is  it 
called  "hell  flre,"  "lake  of  flre,"  "outer  darkness," 
where  "there  shall  be  weeping  and  gnashing  of 
teeth  ?  "  We  take  these  expressions  as  figures  of 
speech,  descriptive  of  the  punishment  of  the 
wicked  ,  and  all  is  plain.  "Outer  darkness"  shows 


234  DANGER  OF  EXTREMES. 

it  to  be  a  state  of  banishment — away  from  the 
light  of  God  and  the  bliss  of  heaven.  "Hell  flre." 
etc.,  portrays  the  exquisiteness  of  the  punishment. 
It  is  claimed,  however,  that  the  "weeping -and 
gnashing  of  teeth"  will  take  place  before  they  are 
cast  into  outer  darkness.  If  this  position  be  true, 
then  the  sinner  undergoes  conscious  torment  for 
a  season,  (just  how  long  is  not  said,)  and  when  his 
life  is  gone  and  his  sufferings  are  at  an  end, 
then  his  punishment  begins  !  Why  is  it  the  rule, 
here,  that  conscious  suffering  is  the  penalty  for 
transgressing  God's  laws,  if  the  opposite  of  this 
obtains  at  the  judgment?  Or,  if  it  be  said  that 
suffering  is  not  the  penalty  for  sin,  then,  we  ask, 
why  do  we  suffer  when  we  do  violence  to  God's 
laws? 

The  logical  deductions  from  the  positions  as- 
sumed by  our  opponents,  show  the  danger  of  ex- 
tremes, and  how  undesirable  is  the  doctrine  of 
gross  materialism.  Here  are  some  of  them. 
Eternal  life  is  the  promised  reward  to  the  right- 
eous, but  we  receive  no  portion  of  it  till  the  judg- 
ment, death  is  the  threatened  punishment  to  the 
wicked,  but  they  do  not  begin  to  be  punished  till 
they  are  dead.  Therefore,  the  righteous  receive 
no  part  of  their  reward,  in  this  life,  and  the  wick- 
ed, no  part  of  their  punishment.  Eternal  life, 
and  death,  it  is  admitted,  are  opposites  ;  there- 
fore, as  the  second  death  is  defined  to  be  the  anni- 
hilation of  conscious  being,  eternal  life,  its  oppo- 
site, is  simply  and  only  the  continuation  of  con- 
scious existence.  If  it  be  said,  the  righteous  will 
become  immortal,  at  the  resurrection,  we  reply, 
the  Devil  and  his  angels  are  immortal,  but  does 
that  make  them  happy  ?  The  theory  will  not  hold 
good.  It  is  like  a  broken  cistern  that  holds  no 
water. 


WORD  DESTROY.  235 

Let  us  now  give  our  attention  to  the  word 
;<destroy."  There  is  nothing  in  the  definition  of 
the  word  which  necessitates  the  position  of  mor- 
tal-soulists. 

God  destroyed  the  Antediluvians,  by  water, 
(Gen.  7  :4)  but,  as  we  have  seen,  Christ,  after  be- 
ing "put  to  death  in  the  flesh,"  went  and  preach- 
ed to  them,  while  they  were  in  prison.  (1  Peter 
3 : 18-20. 

But  the  same  day  that  Lot  went  out  of  Sodom,  it  rained 
fire  and  brimstone  from  heaven,  and  destroyed  them  all; 
Even  thus  shall  it  be  in  the  day  when  the  Son  of  Man  is 
revealed.— Luke  17:29,  30. 

Jude,  when  speaking  of  the  destruction  of 
Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  says,  they  "are  set  for  an 
example,  suffering  the  vengeance  of  eternal  fire." 
(Jude  7.)  Our  opponents  may  choose  for  them- 
selves, whether  this  "eternal  fire"  was  that  which 
produced  temporal  death,  or  whether  it  applies  in 
the  intermediate  state.  If  the  former,  which  we 
do  not  deny,  then  it  must  have  been  an  eternal 
destruction,  the  same  kind  of  destruction  which 
shall  occur  "when  the  Son  of  Man  is  revealed." 
And  yet,  Jesus  teaches  us  that  the  people  of  Sod- 
om shall  appear  in  the  judgment,  and  it  shall  be 
more  tolerable  for  them  than  for  the  people  of 
Chorazin  and  Capernaum.  Clearly,  then,  their 
destruction  by  eternal  fire  was  not  the  annihila- 
tion of  their  conscious  being;  and  as  the  same 
kind  of  destruction  is  to  affect  the  wicked  when 
Jesus  Christ  makes  his  second  advent  into  the 
world,  the  proper  conclusion  is  that  it  will  not  be 
the  annihilation  of  their  conscious  being,  but  all 
those  who  are  destroyed  by  fire  at  that  time,  will 
come  forth  in  the  general  resurrection  and  be 
judged  according  to  their  works.  Yes,  the  very 
ones  of  whom  Malachi  says,  "And  the  day  that 
cometh  shall  burn  them  up,  saith  the  Lord  of 
Hosts,  that  it  shall  leave  them  neither  root  nor 


238  DESTROY  CONTINUED. 

branch,"  (Mai.  4:1),  shall  come  forth  in  the  res- 
urrection with  the  Antediluvians  and  Sodomites, 
and,  in  the  judgment,  every  one  "shall  give  an  ac- 
count of  himself  to  God." 

Paul  describes  this  destruction  of  the  wicked, 
the  antetype  of  which  v*e  have  in  the  destruction 
of  the  Antediluvians,  in  2  Thes.  1:9:  "Who  shall 
be  punished  with  everlasting  destruction  fiom  the 
presence  of  the  Lord,  and  from  the  glory  of  his 
power.  In  the  sixth  verse  Paul  refers  to  the  pun- 
ishment of  the  same  class  and  calls  it  "tribula- 
tion;" that  is,  "severe  affliction ;  distress  of  life; 
vexation."  And  in  Heb.  10 : 26-29,  Paul  contrasts 
the  future  punishment  of  the  wicked  with  the  pun- 
ishment of  those  who  despised  Moses'  law,  "and  died 
without  mercy  under  two  or  three  witnesses."  He 
says :  "Of  how  much  sorer  punishment,  suppose  ye, 
shall  he  be  thought  worthy,  who  hath  trodden  un- 
der foot  the  Son  of  God,  and  hath  counted  the 
blood  of  the  covenant,  wherewith  he  was  sanctified, 
an  unholy  thing,  and  hath  done  despite  unto  the 
spirit  of  grace."  (Yerse  29.) 

Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  them,  Destroy  this  tem- 
ple, and  in  three  days  I  will  raise  it  up.  But  he  spake  of 
the  temple  of  his  body.— John  2:19,  21. 

Destruction  here  means  death ;  and  the  very 
Jesus  who  laid  his  body  down  in  death,  raised  it 
up  in  the  resurrection. 

Persons  are  sometimes  destroyed  while  yet 
alive.  The  word  has  a  variety  of  meanings,  and 
its  true  import,  in  any  text,  must  be  learned  by  its 
connection  with  other  words. 

He  hath  destroyed  me  on  every  side.— Job  19:10. 

My  people  are  destroyed  for  lack  of  knowledge.— Hosea 
4:6. 

O  Israel,  thou  hast  destroyed  thyself;  but  in  me  is 
thine  help.— Hosea  13:0. 

We  hardly  need  to  be  told  that  after  the  con- 
scious existence  of  a  people  is  annihilated,  they 
can  not  have  hope  in  God. 


PERISH  EXAMINED.  237 

Inanimate  things  are  destroyed  without  being 
annihilated. 

Knowest  thou  not  yet  that  Egypt  is  destroyed  ?  —Ex. 
10:7. 

Babylon  is  suddenly  fallen  and  destroyed:  howl  for 
her;  take  balm  for  her  pain,  if  so  be  that  she  may  be 
healed.--Jer.  51:8. 

And  shouldst  destroy  them  which  destroy  the  earth. -- 
Rev.  11:18. 

It  can  easily  be  seen  from  the  above  examples 
of  the  Bible  use  of  the  word  destroy,  that  mortal- 
soul  ists  gain  nothing  by  an  appeal  to  this  word. 
If  they  could  prove  (but  they  can  not)  that  when 
this  and  other  strong  words  are  applied  to  the 
punishment  of  the  wicked,  they  necessarily  mean 
annihilation  of  conscious  being,  they  would  gain  a 
point.  Bight  here,  where  proof  is  most  needed, 
we  have  nothing  more  than  assumption. 

Let  us  take  a  look  at  the  word  *  'perish." 
Neither  the  Hebrew  nor  Greek  word  for  perish 
furnish  any  support  for  the  belief  that  the  pun- 
ishment of  the  wicked  is  the  end  of  their  con- 
scious existence.  Eev.  Luther  Lee,  in  "IMMOR- 
TALITY OF  THE  SOUL,"  p.  174,  makes  the  following 
statements,  and  furnishes  us  with  the  following 
definition: 

The  original  word  rendered  perish  in  these  texts,  is 
very  far  from  settling  tfee  question  in  favor  of  annihila- 
tion, or  the  final  extinction  of  tbe  wicked.  Let  us  look  at 
each  text  by  itself.  Luke  13:3:  "Ye  shall  all  likewise  per- 
ish." The  Greek  word  here  used  is  "apoleisthe;"  it  is  th« 
second  person  plural,  of  "apolumi,"  or  "appolluo."  which 
is  defined  thus:  "To  abolish,  destroy,  ruin;  to  kill,  slay; 
to  lose;  "apoluamai,"  to  be  ruined,  lost,  undone,  to  perish, 
decay.  (See  Groves  Greek  and  English  Dictionary.) 

So,  it  may  easily  be  seen  from  the  above  defi- 
nition, that  there  is  nothing  in  the  meaning  of 
the  word  perish  which  settles  the  qirestioa  in 
favor  of  the  annihilation  of  conscious  being.  Per- 
ish, like  destroy,  sometimes  means  to  die,  some- 
times to  suffer,  or  to  be  lost. 


238  HEBREW  FOR  PERISH. 

That  Daniel  and  his  fellows  should  not  perish  with  the 
rest  of  the  wise  of  Babylon.— Daniel  2:18. 

And  I  perish  with  hunger.— Luke  15:17. 

There  is  a  just  man  that  perisheth  in  his  righteousness, 
and  there  is  a  wicked  man  that  prolongeth  his  life  in  his 
wickedness.— Eccles.  7:15. 

The  righteous  perisheth,  and  no  man  layeth  it  to  heart. 
--Isa.  57:1. 

All  flesh  shall  perish  together,  and  man  shall  turn  again 
to  dust.— Job  34: 14. 

"All  flesh  shall  perish,"  that  is,  all  people  shall 
die,  and  yet,  all  shall  come  forth  in  the  resurrec- 
tion. The  righteous  perish  as  well  as  the  wicked, 
that  is,  they  die,  but  the  facts  that  they  will  all 
come  forth,  and  every  one  "shall  give  an  account 
of  himself  to  God,"  is  good  evidence  that  when 
they  perished  there  was  no  annihilation  of  con- 
sciousness. 

One  of  the  Hebrew  words  rendered  perish,   is 

in  a  number  of  passages  rendered   "lost."      This 

word  is  abaci,  and  is  defined  "to  perish,  be  lost." 

She  saw  that  she  had  waited,  and  her  hope  was  lost,  etc. 

— Ezek.  19:5. 

Her  hope  was  lost,  (had  perished,)  but  she  was 
conscious  of  the  fact. 

In  Ezek.  34 : 4,  a  number  of  serious  accusations 
are  brought  against  the  Shepherds  of  Israel,  one 
of  which  is,  "Neither  have  ye  sought  that  which 
was  lost,"  (perished)  referring  to  the  Lord's  people 
that  had  been  scattered  upon  the  mountains,  and 
hills,  and  upon  the  face  of  the  earth,  but  were 
alive  and  conscious.  What  we  say  of  the  Hebrew 
is  also  true  of  the  Greek. 

Apollu,  "to  lose  away,  destroy,  waste." 

Go  rather  to  the  lost,  (perished)  sheep  of  the  house  of 
Israel.— Matt.  10:6. 

None  of  them  is  lost  (perished)  but  the  son  of  perdition. 
—John  17:12. 

Examples  to  prove  that  the  originals  for  per- 
ish mean  lost,  or  moved  from  the  proper  place,  are 
numerous,  but  the  foregoing  are  sufficient  to 
answer  our  purpose. 


PERISH  CONTINUED.  239 

In  Luke  15:17,  "I  perish  with  hunger,"  it 
means  to  suffer,  or  at  most  to  die. 

Whereby  the;  world  that  then  was,  being  overflowed 
with  water,  perished:  but  the  heavens  and  the  earth 
which  are  now,  by  the  same  word  are  kept  in  store,  re- 
served unto  fire  against  the  day  of  judgment  and  perdition 
of  ungodly  men.— 2  Peter  3: 6,  7. 

They  shall  perish,  but  thou  remainest;  and  they  al] 
shall  wax  old  as  doth  a  garment;  and  as  a  vesture  shalt 
thou  fold  them  up,  and  they  shall  be  changed:  but  thou 
artMie  same,  and  thy  years  shall  not  fail.— Heb.  1:11, 12. 

In  these  passages,  where  perish  is  used  in  its 
strongest  sense,  it  only  implies  to  pass  away,  to 
change.  There  would  be  no  propriety  in  saying 
that  the  heavens  and  earth  "shall  be  changed," 
if  they  are  to  be  annihilated.  They  are  to  be 
folded  up  and  changed,  and  out  of  them  are  to 
come  the  "new  heavens  and  the  new  earth,  where- 
in dwelleth  righteousness."  (2  Peter  3:13.)  And 
yet,  the  heavens  and  earth  are  to  perish,  and  the 
earth  is  to  be  "burned  up."  (2  Peter  3  : 10.)  The 
language  found  in  Malachi  4 : 1,  and  applied  by 
mortal-soulists  to  the  annihilation  of  the  con- 
scious being  of  the  wicked,  is  no  stronger  than  that 
which  is  applied  to  the  destruction  of  the  earth. 
Malachi  says,  "And  the  day  that  cometh  shall 
burn  them  up,  saith  the  Lord  of  Hosts,  that  it 
shall  leave  them  neither  root  nor  branch."  Not 
"burn  them  up  both  root  and  branch,"  as  it  is 
sometimes  quoted,  but.  "it  shall  leave  them  neith- 
er root  nor  branch."  What  shall  leave  them 
neither  root  nor  branch  ?  The  fire  that  God  shall 
use  to  burn  up  that  which  is  corruptible,  but  never 
that  which  is  pure,  and,  therefore,  incorruptible. 

Mortal-soulists,  by  the  force  of  logic,  must  ac- 
cept one  of  these  two  positions  :  All  men,  outside 
of  Christ,  are  totally  depraved — wholly  corrupt— 
and  therefore  their  conscious  existence  shall  be 
blotted  out,  never  more  to  return ;  or  God  will 
destroy  the  pure  and  t;he  good  along  with  the  evil ' 


240  THE  WORD  CONSUME. 

That  is,  He  will  annihilate  that  which  is  incor- 
ruptible for  the  purpose  of  annihilating  that 
which  is  corruptible !  Which  of  these  positions 
will  our  opponents  defend? 

Paul  presents  this  whole  matter  very  clearly, 
in  1  Cor.  3 : 13-15. 

Every  man's  work  shall  be  made  manifest:  for  the  day 
shall  declare  it,  because  it  shall  be  revealed  by  fire;  and 
the  fire  shall  try  every  man's  work  of  what  sort  it  is.  If 
any  man's  work  abide  which  he  hath  built  thereupon,  he 
shall  receive  reward.  If  any  man's  work  shall  be  burned, 
he  shall  suffer  loss:  bat  he  himself  shall  be  saved;  yet  so  as 
by  fire. 

We  are  happy  in  the  thought  that  there  are 
but  few,  if  any,  individuals  who  are  wholly  cor- 
rupt, or  entirely  destitute  of  good ;  and  we  are 
firmly  fixed  in  the  belief  that  God  will  not  anni- 
hilate that  which  is  good.  So  we  will  let  the  as- 
sumptions of  mortal-soul ists  concerning  the  word 
"perish,"  as  applied  to  the  future  punishment  of 
the  wicked,  perish,  with  all  other  claims  which 
have  neither  fact  nor  truth  as  a  foundation  upon 
which  to  stand. 

The  word  "consume,"  or  "consumed,"  is  also 
used  as  evidence  to  support  the  theory  we  oppose. 

Let  the  sinners  be  consumed  out  of  the  earth.— Psalms 
104:35. 

And  they  that  forsake  the  Lord  shall  be  consumed.— 
Isa.  1:28. 

They  [the  enemies  of  the  Lord]  shall  consume;  into 
smoke  shall  they  consume  away.— Psalms  37:20. 

Unless  we  are  determined  to  support  some 
chosen  theory  by  such  passages  as  the  above,  it  is 
easily  seen  that  they  are  used  in  a  figurative 
sense.  Some  of  them  are  highly  figurative.  Let 
us  glance  at  the  last  one  cited.  "Into  smoke  shall 
they  consume  away."  If  we  take  this  in  a  strictly 
literal  sense,  then  the  wicked,  after  they  are 
burned,  will  be  nothing  but  smoke  !  How  then. 
we  ask,  can  the  righteous  tread  upon  the  wicked, 


CONSUME  CONTINUED.  241 

as  stated  by  Malachi  and  often  quoted  by  our  op- 
ponents? Will  they  not  have  to  step  rather 
high?  Malachi  says,  after  stating  that  "the  day 
that  cometh  shall  burn  them  up,"  "And  ye  shall 
tread  down  the  wicked ;  for  they  shall  be  ashes 
under  the  soles  of  your  feet  in  the  day  that  I  shall 
do  this  saith  the  Lord  of  Hosts."  According  to 
this  bold,  literalistic  interpretation,  David  is 
made  to  teach  that  the  wicked  shall  be  turned 
into  smoke,  but  Malachi  says  they  shall  be  ashes ! 
Which  is  right?  If  we  take  both  in  a  figurative 
sense,  all  is  plain. 

Consume  is  sometimes  applied  to  inanimate 
objects  in  this  same  figurative  sense.  Ezek.  13  : 13, 
14.  "There  shall  be  an  overflowing  shower  in 
mine  anger,  and  great  hailstones  in  my  fury  to 
consume  it.  So  will  I  break  down  the  wall."  See 
also  Ezek.  35  : 12,  where  the  mountains  of  Israel 
became  desolate  and  are  given  into  the  hands  of 
men  "to  consume."  In  the  verse  quoted,  the  wall 
is  consumed  by  hailstones.  Did  the  hailstones  an- 
nihilate that  wall  ? 

Job  4  : 9.  "And  by  the  breath  of  his  nostrils 
are  they  consumed."  Is  this  literal  fire? 

Job  19 : 27.  "Whom  I  shall  see  for  myself,  and 
my  eyes  shall  behold,  and  not  another ;  though  my 
reins  be  consumed  within  me."  This  certainly 
does  not  imply  even  a  temporary  cessation  of  con- 
scious existence. 

Psalms  102 : 3.  "For  my  days  are  consumed 
like  smoke,  and  my  bones  are  burned  as  a  hearth." 
Were  these  days  annihilated  ? 

Pro  verbs  5: 11,  12.  "And  thou  mourn  at  the 
last,  when  thy  flesh  and  thy  body  are  consumed, 
and  say,  How  have  I  hated  instruction,  and  my 
heart  despised  reproof."  If  this  consumption  ol 
flesh  and  body  means  death,  then  there  is  con- 
sciousness after  death.  If  it  does  not  implj 


1142  CUT  OFF. 

death,  then  individuals  may  be  consumed  without 
disturbing  their  consciousness  in  the  least. 

The  wicked,  we  are  told,  are  to  be  "cut  off." 
Psalms  37  : 9,  34.  "For  evil  doers  shall  be  cut  off." 
"When  the  wicked  are  cut  off  thou  shalt  see  it." 
"Cut  off,"  as  found  in  the  above  passages,  cannot 
mean  anything  more  than  temporal  death,  or  ban- 
ishment from  the  presence  of  God  and  his  people. 
The  same  Hebrew  word  karath,  is  found  in  Daniel 
9 : 26.  "And  after  threescore  and  two  weeks  shall 
Messiah  be  cut  off,  but  not  for  himself."  If  the 
first  two  passages  imply  the  annihilation  of  con- 
scious being,  then  Christ  was  annihilated  at  the 
time  he  was  cut  off  I 

The  expressions  "was  not,"  "could  not  be 
found,"  "shall  be  as  though  they  had  not  been," 
and  such  like,  are  relied  upon,  and  they  are  ingen- 
iously appended  to  a  statement  of  belief  so  as  to 
make  it  appear  that  eternal  oblivion  is  the  final 
destiny  of  all  who  are  not  true  believers  in  Christ. 
Here  are  some  of  the  texts  quoted. 

Yet  he  passed  away,  and  lo,  he  was  not;  yea  I  sought 
him,  but  he  could  not  be  found.— Psalms  37:36. 

In  Genesis  5  :24,  we  have  the  phrase  "was  not" 
coming  from  the  same  Hebrew  as  the  one  just 
quoted.  It  reads  as  follows : 

And  Enoch  walked  with  God:  and  he  was  not;  for  God 
took  him." 

It  will  hardly  be  claimed  that  Enoch's  con- 
scious being  was  annihilated  at  the  time  he  was 
not,  but  rather,  that  he  "was  translated  that  he 
should  not  see  death."  (Heb.  11 : 5.) 

For  as  ye  have  drunk  upon  my  holy  mountain,  so  shall 
all  the  heathen  drink  continually,  yea.  they  shall  drink 
and  they  shall  swallow  down,  and  they  shall  be  as  though 
they  had  not  been.— ObadiahlG. 

If  it  could  be  shown  that  this  scripture  applies 
to  the  future  punishment  of  the  wicked,  at  the 
judgment,  it  would  come  far  short  of  proving  the 
annihilation  of  consciousness.  However,  it  is 


"AS  THOUGH  THEY  HAD  NOT  SEEK."  243 

finite  evident  that  no  reference  is  had  to  the  final 
judgment,  but,  rather,  to  the  distress,  overthrow, 
and  temporal  destruction  of  the  kingdom  of  Esau. 
The  words  "they  shall  be,"  are  just  as  good  proof 
of  conscious  existence,  as  the  words,  "as  though 
they  had  not  been,"  are  against  it.  Job  applies 
equally  strong  language  to  his  brethren,  who  were 
both  alive  and  conscious.  Job  6 : 15-18. 

My  brethren  have  dealt  deceitfully  as  a  brook,  and  as  the 
stream  of  brooks  they  pass  away;  Which  are  blackish  by 
reason  of  the  ice,  and  wherein  the  snow  is  hid:  What  time 
they  wax  warm,  they  vanish:  when  it  is  hot  they  are  con- 
sumed out  of  their  place.  The  paths  of  their  way  are  turned 
aside;  they  go  to  nothing,  and  perish. 

"Go  to  nothing  and  perish,"  is  about  as  strong 
language  as  our  opponents  will  find  anywhere  ap- 
plied to  the  punishment  of  the  wicked. 

Job  7  : 21.  "For  now  shall  I  sleep  in  the  dust ; 
and  thou  shalt  seek  me  in  the  morning,  but  I  shall 
not  be."  Here  Job,  speaking  of  his  death,  says, 
"I  shall  not  be ;"  and  yet,  in  Job  19  :26,  27,  he  ex- 
presses his  hope  in  the  resurrection.  "Yet  in  my 
flesh  shall  I  see  God  :  Whom  I  shall  see  for  my- 
self, and  mine  eyes  shall  behold,  and  not  another  ; 
though  my  reins  be  consumed  within  me." 

Whenever  the  words  "I  shall  not  be,"  properly 
applied  to  Job,  he  became,  in  the  same  sense,  as 
though  "he  had  not  been ;"  but  was  that  the  end 
of  his  conscious  being  forever  ?  Far  from  it. 

If  space  would  permit,  we  would  go  through 
the  entire  list  of  strong  words  depended  upon  by 
mortal-soulists,  to  support  the  belief  that  the  fu- 
ture punishment  of  the  wicked  consists  in  the  an- 
nihilation of  their  conscious  being;  but,  were  we 
to  do  so  it  would  bring  precisely  the  same  results 
which  have  obtained  in  the  examination  of  the 
words  destroy,  perish,  consume,  cut  off,  etc. 
There  is  absolutely  no  support  furnished  our  oppo- 
nents by  the  Bible  use  of  these  terms.  In  thiscoa- 


244  CONCLUDING  REMARKS. 

nection  we  commead  the  following  words  of  Mi 
Haley.     ''DISCREPANCIES  OF  THE  BIBLE,"  p.  209. 

(1)  Those  persons  who  undertake  to  build  a  doctrine 
upon  the  figures  of  poetry  and  Oriental  idiom  are  expend- 
ing their  labor  just  as  wisely  as  they  would  be  in  endeavor- 
ing to  make  a  pyramid  stand  upon  its  apex.  Their  foundation 
is  inadequate,  and  their  efforts  nugatory.  (2)  As  to  the  He- 
brew terms  rendered  in  our  version,  consume,  cut  off,  die. 
destroy,  devour,  perish,  and  the  like,  neither  in  the  orig- 
inal terms,  nor  in  their  English  equivalents,  nor  in  the  con- 
nection in  which  they  stand,  is  there  inherent  force  01 
aught  else  which  necessitates,  or  even  warrants,  the  inter- 
pretation of  them  as  implying  annihilation,  extinction  oJ 
consciousness,  or  cessation  of  existence. 

The  fact  that  these  words  upon  which  our  op- 
ponents rely,  are  applied  to  persons  while  living 
and  conscious,  renders  them  entirely  useless  as  a 
means  of  support  for  the  dogma  which  we  are 
opposing. 

This  little  volume  has  been  written  for  the 
benefit  of  all  who  are  willing,  and  need  to  be  ben- 
fltted,  both  of  those  who  believe,  and  those  who 
do  not  believe  in  the  immortality  of  the  soul. 
Through  the  blessings  of  God,  may  it  prove  to  be 
a  help  and  means  of  confirmation  and  light  to  the 
one  class,  while  it  corrects,  instructs,  and  leads  to 
a  larger  and  better  hope,  the  other.  For  perfec- 
tion of  style  and  manner  of  presentation  we  make 
no  claim ;  but  for  honesty  of  purpose  and  purity 
of  motive,  we  are  willing  and  ready  to  answer  to 
God,  to  whom  we  now  commit  the  work  done,  be- 
lieving that  it  will  be  a  help  and  blessing  to  all 
who  are  willing  to  give  it  a  careful  and  proper 
perusal.  We  are  well  assured  that  the  truth  will 
stand,  and  stand  forever ;  but  all  error  will  per- 
ish, and  its  advocates  and  adherents  will  suffer 
loss.  "Every  plant  which  my  heavenly  Father 
hath  not  planted,  shall  be  rooted  up."  Let  us  see 
to  it  that,  in  belief  and  practice  we  are  in  har- 
mony with  God. 


CHAPTER.  INDEX. 

PART  I. 

CHAPTER  I.  The  Bible  the  standard  of  evi- 
dence— How  it  should  be  viewed— The  differ- 
ent characters  it  presents— Careful  discrimin- 
ation necessary £ 

CHAPTER  II.  An  examination  of  the  nature 
and  constitution  of  man 1C 

CHAPTER  HI.  Historical  evidence  — The  doc- 
trine of  immortality  originated  with  God. .  .21 

CHAPTER  IY.  Scientific  evidences  considered 
— The  true  province  of  science— It  can  furnish 
no  valid  support  for  the  doctrine  that  man  is 
wholly  mortal  and  unconscious  after  death  37 

0 

CHAPTER  Y.  Nature  of  man— He  is  possessed 
of  a  spirit  or  soul,  which  thinks  and  acts — It 
lives  in  a  conscious  state  when  out  of  the  body 
—The  soul  does  not  die  with  the  body — Ad- 
ventist  claims  examined  and  refuted 49 

CHAPTER  VI.  Christ  the  true  source  of  light 
and  knowledge  —  The  Man  Christ  Jesus  the 
true  type  of  all  other  men  in  life  and  death— 
His  pre-existence,  life  and  death  considered  95 


PART  II. 

CHAPTER  I.  Intermediate  State  — Both  the 
righteous  and  the  wicked  are  conscious  be- 
tween death  and  the  resurrection Ill 

CHAPTER  II.  The  resurrection  of  the  dead  and 
eternal  life— Eternal  life  begins  when  we  obey 
the  gospel 176 

CHAPTER  III.  The  second  death,  or  future 
punishment— Is  the  "Lake  of  fire"  literal?  — 
Will  all  who  are  not  Christians  lose  their  con- 
scious existence  at  the  judgment  ? 193 

CHAPTER  IY.  ADDENDA  Objections  an- 
swered  225 


LIST  OF  AUTHORS  QUOTED  IN 
THIS  WORK. 


Abbott,  Rev.  Lyman,  pp.  30, 

127,  137,  138, 140, 143, 196. 
Anonymous,  pp.  36,  48. 
Andrews,  J.  N.,  p.  119. 
Alford,  pp.  71, 139, 150. 

Brewer,  Eld.  S.  S.,  pp.  28,  29. 
Buchner,  p.  39. 
Buck,  Dr.,  p.  54. 
Brown,  John,  p.  54. 
Bull.  Bishop,  p.  139. 
Bartlett,  Prof.,  p.  139. 

Collins,  Eld.  L.  O.,  pp.  140, 
141. 155. 

Dicks,  Dr..  pp.  32,  33. 
Drurnmond,    Prof.    Henry, 

pp.  39,  40. 
Dement,  R.  S.,  pp.  44,  45,  46. 

Eusebius,  pp.  34,  99,  100. 
Ellis,  Aaron,  pp.  57,  58, 170. 

Puerst,  p.  54. 
Fowler  and  Wells,  p.  92. 
Farrar,  F.  W.,  D.  D.,  F.  R.  S., 
pp.  150,  151, 152?  153,  154. 

Gesenius,  p.  54. 

Grant,  Eld.  Miles,  pp.  14,  38, 
39,  50,  52.  53.  55,  56,  60.  62,  68, 
80.  89.  103.  196,  197,  198,  199, 
203,  220,  225.  227,  230. 

Haley,  John  W..  M.  A.,  pp. 
21,  22,  139,  150, 164,  244. 

Ingersoll,  R.  G.,  p.  44. 

Josephus,  ps.  29,  31. 

Jones.  Wiley,  pp.  72,  113, 114, 

129,  130,  131, 144,  145,  219,  220 

221. 


Kingsley,  Charles,  p.  231. 

Lebody.  Prof.,  p.  41. 
Leidy,  Dr.  Joseph,  p.  42. 
Liddell  and  Scott,  p.  54. 
Lee,  Rev.  Luther,   pp.  120 

237. 
Lewis,  Prof.  Taylor,  p.  150. 

Millner,  p.  34. 

Moore.  Dr.  Geo.,  M.  R.  C.  P. 

pp.  46,  47,  48. 

Nelson,  Rev.  David,  M.  D^ 
p.  30. 

Quackenbos,  p.  24. 

Roberts,  Alex.,  D.  D.,  pp.  70, 
225. 

Revisers  of  Revised  Ver- 
sion, pp.  125, 156,  157. 

Sheldon.  Eld.   Wm.,   pp.  59. 

68.  73.  116,  117,  122,  181.  182, 

227,  232. 
Spear.  Samuel  T..  D.  D.,  pp. 

157,  158. 

Todd,  W.  E.,  p.  134. 
Taylor,  Jeremy,  p.  230. 

Whit  more,  p.  27. 
Ward,  Lester  F..  p.  43. 
Watkins,   Eld.  F.  O.,  pp.  68 

126. 

Webster,  p.  89. 
Watson,  p.  47. 

Young,  Dr.  C.  A.,  p.  42. 

Young,  Dr.  Robert,  pp.  53 
77.  85,  156,  166,  167,  2lf~  228 
238. 


DIFFERENT  TRANSLATIONS  OF  THE 

BIBLE  QUOTED  IN  THIS  WORK. 
King  James,  Revised  Version,  Douay,  Geneva, 
and  Syriac. 


PAGE  INDEX. 


A  favorite  text  examined  20 
A  sophism  exposed  22 

Atheism  not  more  absurd  28 
Angels  85 

Adventist  objections  122 
A  paradise  now  127 

Abraham's  bosom  140 

Aaron  Ellis  answered  170 
Accountability  17'9 

All  to  be  resurrected  182 
All  raised  to  immortality  185 
A  concluding  test  192 

A  sorer  punishment  200 
All  good  rewarded  208 

As  though  they  had  not 
been  243 


Bible  use  of  mortality 

and  immortality  19 

Bible  use  of  mortal  24 

Belief  of  the  Jews  31 

Bible  must  determine  50 
Bible  use  of  soul  51 

Bible  use  of  spirit  52 

Breath  of  life  61 

Belief  of  the  apostles  88 
Body  and  spirit  94 

But  one  path  to  h  armony  121 
Breadth  of  Christ's  work  152 
Biblical  hades  157 


Concerning  direct  af- 
firmations 25 
Conflicting  opinions  44 
Christ's  explanation  90 
Christ  the  light  of  men  96 
Christ's  pre-existence  97 
Christ  was,  is,  and  ever 

will  be  100 

Christ's  life  like  our  life  102 
Christ  the  light  of  the 

world  106 

Christ's  death  107 

Christ's  kingdom  123 

Concerning  punctuation  124 
•'Christian  Armory"  134 
Concerning  parables  138 
Comprehensive  views  146 
Commentators'  views  150 
Christ  and  spirits  in 
prisoii  151 


Christ's  great  work  177 

Contrary  to  God's  char- 

acter 213 

Christ  will  destroy 

death  214 

Christ  died  the  spiritual 

death  222 

Contradictory  positions  230 
Conflicting  views  231 

Consume  continued  241 
Concluding  remarks  244 

D 

Demand  and  supply  15 

Drs.  Young  and  Leidy  42 
Definitions  of  "psuche" 

and  "nephesh'*  54 

Death  of  Christ  104 

Death  a  departure  118 

Different  versions  125 

Different  translations  149 
Death  and  resurrection  180 
Death—  banishment  201 
Degrees  of  punishment  212 
Death  the  victor  216 

Duration  of  eternal  life  218 
Dr.  Young  on  the  Hebrew  228 
Danger  of  extremes  234 
Destroy  continued  236 


Earnest   of  our   inher- 

itance 115 

Elder  Watkin's  error  126 
Elysium  and  tartarus  158 
Exegesis  of  hell  175 


False  opinions  34 

Flesh  and  spirit  80 

Favorite  texts  examined  172 
Figurative  descriptions  195 
Future  punishment  199 


Grant's    position    inde- 
fensible 57 
Grant  and  Ellis  58 
Grant  on  spirit  60 
Grant's  witness  against 

him  81 

God  a  spirit  84 

Grant's  view  examined  89 


248 


PAGE  INDEX. 


Grave  and  pit  143 

God  judges  in  the  earth   162 
Gospel  of  life  186 

Grant  on  gehenna  197 

God's  character  207 

Grades  of  glory  209 

Grant  and  Jones  on  pun- 
ishment 219 
Grant's  highest  author- 
ity 226 
Grant's     and    Sheldon's 
contradictions  227 


191 


H 


27 


Historical  evidence 
Hebrew  and  Greek 
Heart  and  mind 
Highly  conscious  state     142 
Hezekiah  and  Job  168 

Hell— gehenna  196 

Hebrew  for  perish  238 


Immortal   food  for  im- 
mortal beings 

Inferential  evidence  26 

Immortality  universally 

believed  30 

Ingersoll  answered  45 

Inspiration  of   the   Al- 
mighty 63 
Inspiration  of  God               64 
Intermediate   state  de- 
nned                                  111 
It  proves  consciousness   120 


Joseph  us  and  Plato  29 
Jesus   existed    in  spirit 

state  99 

Jones  answered  114 

Jones  answered  131 

Job  examined  169 

Jones  or  Grant,  which  ?  221 


Leading  witnesses  7 

Longings  of  the  soul  16 

Laws  of  adaptation  38 

Life  of  Christ  101 

Limited  view  145 

Leading  points  noted  147 
Leading  texts  examined  163 
Living  men  know  noth- 
ing 166 
Life  and  death  187 
Life  eternal  188 
Life  eternal  in  reality  191 
Literal  or  spiritual  death  205 


Mortal-soulists  and  Job  I 
Mortal  and  immortal  be- 

ings lc 

Mind  controls  body  41 

Mind  causes  organization  4fe 
Misleading  definitions  5c 
Melancholy  theology  15o 
Men's  opportunities  223 


Nature  of  man  49 

Natural  and  spiritual 

death  93 

Nature  of  life  and  death  105 
Necessity  of  future 

judgment  160 

Nature  of  punishment  217 


Originated  with  God  32 

Our  house  from  heaven  77 

Our  earthly  house  116 

Objections  answered  206 


Personel  of  the  Bible  6 

Paul  and  Pharisees  35 

Personal  consciousness      43 
Passages  compared  68 

Position  of  mortal-soul- 

ists  73 

Paul's  theology  79 

Paul's  departure  119 

Paradise  and  the  Jews     128 
Points  of  the  transfigur- 
ation 135 
Prison  and  pit  144 
Prophecies  of  Christ         148 
Proper  applications  156 
Present  and  future  re- 
wards                               159 
Present  and  future  re- 
wards                               161 
Perish  construed               171 
Paradise  and  hell  174 
Prophecies  of  Christ         178 
Paul's  hope                         183 
Proportion  of  saved  and 

lost  215 

Punishment  of   the 

wicked  233 

Perish  examined  237 

Perish  continued  239 


Rich  man  and  Lazarus  137 
Ruthless  commentators  154 
Rules  of  interpretation  164 


PAGE  INDEX. 


249 


Reduced  to  an  absurdity  165 
Resurrection  176 


Solemn  obligations  10 

Science  and  immortality  37 
Science  and  eternal  life  40 
Scientists  and  science  41 
Spirit  in  man  62 

Soul  and  spirit  compared  66 
Soul  and  spirit  some- 
times synonymous  67 
Soul  and  spirit  used  in- 
terchangeably 70 
Soul  and  body  71 
Souls  depart  and  return  75 
Spirit  entities  86 
Spirit  and  breath 
Stephen's  prayer  95 
Sheldon  answered  117 
Souls  under  the  altar  129 
Sheol  and  Hades  155 
Strong  expressions  noted  173 
Second  death  193 
Sheol  and  gehenna  used 

interchangeably  229 

Sheldon's  sophistry  232 


The  Old  Testament  9 

The  race  of  man  11 
The  house  in  which  we 

dwell  12 

The  spirit  in  man  14 
The  gospel  for  immortal 

beings  18 

The  Lord  has  been  seen  21 
The  adjective  immortal 

examined  23 

The  universal  belief  33 

The  breath  of  life  55 

The  flesh  and  spirit  65 
The  soul  can  not  be  killed  72 

The  soul  can  sin  76 

The  new  man  82 

Terms  man  and  soul  83 

The  word  06 


The  spirit  of  Christ  103 

This  and  that  world  '  112 
The  family  of  saints  113 
The  transfiguration  130 
The  word  appear  133 

The  wicked  conscious  136 
Teaching  of  Luke  16  139 
Thoughts— purposes,  de- 
signs 167 
Two  resurrections  181 
True  believers  never  die  190 
The  thousand  year  day  202 
The  day  of  Genesis  203 
The  first  death  204 
Three  classes  in  Matt.  25  2K» 
The  three  glories  211 
The  great  conflict  224 
The  thief  on  the  cross  225 

U 

Unscriptural  and  Illog- 
ical 74 
Unquenchable  fire              198 


Voice  of  science  39 

Viewed  from  another 

standpoint  46 

Visions  sometimes  pre- 

sent realities  132 

Victory  over  death  184 

Various  terms  for  pun- 

ishment 194 


Whence  this   universal 

belief  36 

Watkins  and  Grant  66 

Wm.  Sheldon's  views          59 
What  is  death?  92 

When  does  life  begin  ?      189 
Why  do  the  wicked  suf- 

fer? 220 

Word  destroy 

Word  consume  240 

Words  cut  off  242 


